Which Country is most likely to use a nuclear weapon?

[ThomWV]

There are 9 countries that have nuclear weapons. Of the 9 which one do you believe is most likely to use one?

[onehandle]

1. One of them already has, but I'm sure you mean now and in the future. nt

[endarkenment]

2. Empirical evidence provides an answer. nt.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Other...

I don't think any will be crazy enough for a first strike; but the more nukes there are, the more chance that (a) a terrorist group, which is prepared to sacrifice their own lives for a cause, will get access to them; or (b) they will be set off accidentally.

At present, Pakistan is probably the greatest risk for the former. The latter could happen anywhere.

[abluelady]

10. Yours is My Answer, Too. eom

[Mojo_electro]

28. I agree with LeftishBrit...

The country/group/entity most likely to use one would be someone that doesn't really care about "return address" it would surely leave.

Out of the countries listed, I would say Israel, although I think the chances of even that are quite remote.

Mojo

[TheWraith]

4. Pakistan.

Either defensive use to stop an invasion by India, or as part of an invasion by Pakistan against Iran.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Pakistan v Iran?

Where'd that come from?

[TheWraith]

16. Pakistan has 4x the population density of Iran, and gut-wrenching poverty.

If it came to a crisis point for them, it's not hard to imagine them deciding to expand and try to support their population using conquest as a tool. Among their neighbors, they can't take on India or China. Afghanistan has nothing that they would want. That leaves Iran, an oil-rich country with no strong allies in the region, meaning there would be little stopping Pakistan from engineering a pretext, nuking the major military bases, and moving in.

It's not the most likely scenario for a war in central Asia, but it's a lot more possible than you might think.

[madokie]

6. The US and or Isreal

would be my guess. I'm not so sure they won't jointly use nukes on Iran nuclear plants soon

[JackRiddler]

7. Out of countries? US, Israel, or no one.

Most likely no one will do so first, except if the US justifies it in the course of a "conventional" action that "required" such a strike.

Iran is playing for imagined political advantage. North Korea too, with some success.

As for freelance mass murderers, and what such an attack would trigger as reaction: Can't say. And if such a thing were to happen, who would really be behind it? Unlikely to know.

[stray cat]

8. Where is Iran or other?

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Iran doesn't fit the criteria of the question.

You aren't likely to use weapons you don't have. And despite all Likudist propganda and paranoia to the contrary, Iran is nowhere near having such a thing.

[bananas]

38. Yet.

It could certainly have them and use them.

[bertman]

9. It totally depends on "events" and whether some nation's leaders feel they have been backed

into a corner. From that perspective, I'd say Israel, Pakistan, or North Korea.

[Echo In Light]

11. The biggest bully on the block will, and likely assign blame elsewhere

...as a means of furthering empire's aims/goals. Plus the fascists in our govt can then openly, overtly implement the technological/legislative totalitarian infrastructure here as to whisk away the numerous, pesky dissidents who voice moral opposition to Spreading "Democracy," Inc

[Jennicut]

12. Israel. For sure. They are looking for an excuse.

[peace13]

13. My vote is US but I want to qualify it with...

The US military seems to do what it wants to without regard to the will of the people and possibly the President. Not sure where Congress fits in but it looks like they are better friends with the military at this points

[Ganja Ninja]

14. I said India.

They are the one's that are most directly threatened if the Pakistani nukes fall into rebel hands.

[ThomWV]

22. You know - this is really interesting too - I think you are exactly wrong and yet we agree completel...

I think India is the least likely to use their nuclear weapons and suspect that if Pakistan's nukes fell into rebel hands they would be turned against us, Britain, and possibly Australia - in that order.

Its not that I doubt the problem between India and Pakistan (being basically that West Pakistan didn't get all the Provinces it wanted (the valley) when it split off) but I think the Rebels in Pakistan would direct their destructive efforts elsewhere rather than attack India.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, I believe we should be doing everything we can to cement good and lasting relations with India right now including finding ways to apply our technology to their vast rural areas and entering into trade and diplomatic relations that brings us as close together as is possible. I think we should look at India as an equally good friend as Canada as an example. Just me.

[Ganja Ninja]

23. It doesn't much matter what the Pakistani rebels intend to use them for.

If India feels threatened they might act to defend themselves. Also I expect them to have a lot better intelligence about what's happening with the Pakistani nukes and Pakistan in general then we do.

But I don't think they are any more inclined to use nukes than us. They're just in a situation that has more potential to go nuclear than any place else in the world.

[bananas]

36. India is the only country which didn't develop nukes as a deterrent

The crucial importance of the desire for recognition of India as a world power in driving forward the nuclear weapons program, even overshadowing considerations of military necessity and deterrence is underscored by remarks by former weapons program leader Raj Ramanna:

"There was never a discussion among us over whether we shouldn't make the bomb. How to do it was more important. For us it was a matter of prestige that would justify our ancient past. The question of deterrence came much later. Also, as Indian scientists we were keen to show our Western counterparts, who thought little of us those days, that we too could do it."

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaOrigin.html

Although they currently have a no-first-use policy, that can quickly change, especially when their prestige is at stake.

[proteus_lives]

15. Pakistan.

If WWIII is going to start in the next five years, it's going to start in Pakistan.

[Badgerman]

17. Israel is the likeliest and here's why I think so...

Nuclear weapons are an ultimate threat, no country has used one in aggression...the US did so during a war that was perceived as threatening the very being of the nation. This is how the old USSR also perceived it. There appears to be only two realistically probable scenarios in which a country that has developed nuclear weapons would use them: One, is the obvious one of last resort self protection. The second is if extremists were to grab control of the nuclear armed nation. The other possibility is if a nuclear weapon(s) fell into the hands of external extremists via purchase or theft.

Israel perceives the existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of any arab nation to be a direct and dire threat to its existence, therefor if any arab nation were to get very close to developing such a weapon it would preemptively strike. If the arab nation somehow escaped detection in development and reached deployment of such weapons Israel would see justification for stiking such a place with all available weapons, including nuclear, in an effort to destroy the threat.

Pakistan has escaped being on Israels A-list as it is believed that Pakistan thinks of India as its biggest threat and Israel as an Arab problem...if Israels' perception changes Pakistan could be elevated to direct threat.

North Korea is led by a madman, but so far all indications are he is not predisposed to self-immolation and revels in getting his way by threats. Also with limited means and methods against his major adversaries Japan and the US, and yes even China, North Korea has been contained to just threats and held that way with minor appeasements to its collective insanity. In fact the saber rattling of North Korea puts in the category of more sane nations in this area(now that would cause Jog Il to have heart palpatations). Time is on the worlds side with North Korea...it is not so for the Arab nations.

[FLAprogressive]

21. Very good analysis. nt

[bananas]

37. There are many other scenarios

In the first Gulf War, Iraq was warned that if it used chemical or biological weapons, the response would be nuclear.
Just a few years ago Bush wanted to use nuclear bunker-busters on Iran's nuclear sites.
Martin Hellman has done a rough analysis of the ways nuclear deterrence could fail: http://nuclearrisk.org/

[L. Coyote]

19. Other. Real question is where will they steal it?

[Echo In Light]

33. Or which country will PROVIDE it???

[Poll_Blind]

20. Messianic Likudniks with Samson complexes would be my first choice, but my second...

...would be a destabilized Pakistan. I seem to recall reading a few somewheres (including here) that if the government of Pakistan became destabilized at least the UK and probably the U.S. already have contingency plans for securing Pakistan's nukes, forcibly.

That would not be a good week and I can't imagine what kind of casualties might be incurred trying to take nukes away from a new regime. In fact, it just occurred to me that the whole Pakistan thing is very similar to a similar secure-the-nuke operation in the well-written (but frighteningly realistic in this sense) video game Call of Duty 4. You can check out video of what I'm talking about HERE.

Very sobering stuff.

PB

[Optical.Catalyst]

24. I would put Israel at the top of the list followed at a distance by France

The Israelis have the mentality of "we survive or no one survives". The Israelis don't consider them 'nukes' but rather just another bomb that is being held in reserve until the end.

[cali]

25. France? Really? Why?

And Israelis are no more of one mind that the inhabitants of any other country. Frankly, I think the odds of Pakistan's gov't falling, are fairly significant, and that would not go over well with India.

But overall, I'd say the odds of any nation setting off a nuke, are fairly small- at least in the near future.

[Optical.Catalyst]

40. France is, well, France

The French will continue to pursue their national and international policies as they have always done in the past. They will conduct their affairs without regard to world opinion.

The physics to produce an atomic explosion require many thing be present at the same time. On the necessary items is Tritium, which countries like Pakistan have difficulty maintaining a ready supply of.

Even developed countries that have large stockpiles of atomic and nuclear weapons are short on Tritium. Between Israel, Russia, Great Britain, China, France, and the United States, a launch on warning would only result in 10 to 15 nuclear explosions. A protracted nuclear exchange would span months as each country scraped up the required components to assemble working bombs, which would be deployed piecemeal as they became available.

[armyowalgreens]

26. No country or state will ever use a nuclear weapon again.

I can't say the same about stateless rebels though.

[hack89]

27. None - a stolen nuke used by a terrorist group

stolen from Russia or handed over by IIS agents in Pakistan.

[JVS]

29. who is 2 for 2?

USA USA USA!

[dysfunctional press]

30. the same one that already has.

we came fairly close in afghanistan under bush cheney.

[old mark]

31. Pakistan and North Korea, probably in equal measure.

I doubt anyone else on your list would do it, but maybe someone not on your list would feel the divind complusion to do so.

The liklihood of the US using nukes in the future is lower since we no longer have "religious Right" people believing that god is telling them what to do running the government.....


mark

[QueenOfCalifornia]

32. N. Korea, Pakistan or Israel

I picked N. Korea - Here it is in a nutshell... :

North Korea's nuclear threat increasingly worries South
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0516/1224246700981.html

CHRISTIAN OLIVER in Seoul and DEMETRI SEVASTOPULO in Washington
SOUTH KOREA is increasingly concerned that North Korea’s latest threats about processing plutonium to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal is no longer a negotiating ploy to gain leverage with the US.

Policymakers in Seoul believe Pyongyang may have decided to pursue a non-negotiable strategy of trying to develop nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles by 2012, in an attempt to bolster the ailing regime with a fully-fledged nuclear deterrent and secure a domestic propaganda coup.

Washington and Seoul have usually interpreted bouts of belligerence from the communist dictatorship over recent years as attempts to bargain for food aid, fuel oil and security guarantees.

This has been particularly the case in the context of the stalled six-party talks, which are aimed at denuclearising the Korean peninsula.

“We hope they will return to negotiations, but we are also preparing for the second contingency, that they do not,” said a senior South Korean official.

“A few years ago, many people thought North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons in an exchange. Now, that is not the common view.”

Since April, North Korea has fired a long-range rocket over Japan, announced the resumption of plutonium work and threatened to test a second nuclear warhead.

In unusually strong language, Pyongyang has refused to rejoin the six-party talks, and has spurned suggestions that it might take part in bilateral talks with the “hostile” US.

South Korean officials initially saw the sabre-rattling as an effort to test inexperienced presidents in Seoul and Washington.

But now they suspect it is part of a propaganda campaign to become a “mighty nation” by 2012, the centenary of the birth of Kim Il-sung, the nation’s founder.

Top diplomats said the hardline military was now steering nuclear arms policy, making economic bargains less probable.

Choi Choon-heum, an expert at the Korea Institute for National Unification, said possessing a nuclear missile would allow North Korea to consolidate the regime.

“The North’s military has greater sway than before because of internal weaknesses, such as Kim Jong-il’s health,” he said.

But while South Korea grows more alarmed about North Korea, some US experts say the Obama administration is less pessimistic. Dennis Wilder, the top White House Asia official until January, says the South Korean view was “a little bit out in front” of the other six-party members.

Mr Wilder said the Obama team believed it was “premature” to make that judgment, saying it saw the bellicosity in the context of preparations for the eventual succession of Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader who suffered a stroke last year.

He added that harsh language appeared aimed at sending an internal message about the “indispensable nature of the dynasty.” – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

[closeupready]

34. We already did. Twice.

n/t

[Dogtown]

35. I believe the US

is more than capable of using a *tactical* nuclear weapon.

We're a bully nation and have a track record of picking amoral sociopaths for leadership positions.

We're in the eye of the storm, citizens.

[agentS]

39. never underestimate desperate men in desperate situations

I voted Pakistan but they won't nuke a neighboring nation.

They might, if pushed hard enough, nuke Swat valley or tora bora if they can't get a handle on the situation.

[mmonk]

41. The one that has.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

42. I say a tie between Israel or Pakistan.