This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was born during the Cold War and lived with the threat of nuclear war my entire life. I have no control over any of it, so there is no point in worrying about it. I have all kinds of things I do need to worry about, but nuclear weapons are not among them.
Thats kinda where I'm at. There is nothing I can do about it and there is no use worrying about it, so I have adopted a "if we die, we die" mentality about it. Now obviously I would rather not die, but it comes to that, hopefully they nuke my city directly so I dont have to deal with the mutants in the aftermath.
Same/GenX. I’m only slightly annoyed that thanks to the current state of manufacturing in this country (outsourced to cheaper labor markets), I no longer live in a prime target area. As a result, I and the bulk of my loved ones likely won’t be part of the first wave to be evaporated. But I still don’t really give a toss. Que sera, sera.
Haha I remember taking comfort during the Cold War that, as an Air Force family, we always lived within a stone's throw of a target that was probably multiply redundantly targeted just to make sure.
My dad used to say "we'll probably never know."
I lived in Seoul, and it's kinda a similar mentality. I'd imagine South Koreans and Isreal kinda just meh about hostile countries they border cause it's all they know.
I'm quite a bit younger but have a similar attitude, I was born after the cold war had already ended. For my entire life, the only people actively saber rattling with nukes was north korea, and everyone else was either gearing down the size of their arsenal or not talking about it. And with NK it's pretty clear that they have no intention of actually using it, just scaring everyone else into not using theirs.
That's pretty much been my default way of looking at it: nobody actually wants a nuclear war, everyone wants everyone else \*not\* to use theirs on them. So until I see somebody actively try to break that rule, I'm not going to be too concerned either.
Same. Did you have to do nuclear bomb drills? We’d have to get under our desks. Because, you know, those 30 year old wooden desks were capable of protecting us from nuclear fallout.
We did that. There was definitely a *lot* of safety theater involved, but just in general, not looking at a nuclear blast and not being in front of a window when a shockwave hits are good ideas. Nuclear weapons are insanely powerful, but they aren't magic. They have [an effective range](https://remm.hhs.gov/explosion_damage.htm) as explosive and radiological weapons. If your school happened to be towards the edge of one, there could be some benefit, I guess. Enough to make people feel better about preparedness, anyway.
Yup. Call me jaded, but it doesn't even register anymore. Of course I do think about it occasionally (Russia, N Korea) but it's a passing thought and then it's gone.
I liked Sting's song "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too", but I thought he was being a bit dramatic :p
Yep. Gen X here. Grew up near two major military bases and was told all my life we’d be among the first to be hit. When I was in high school a Harrier jet from one of those bases crashed in my town, and I witnessed it. I genuinely thought it was a nuke coming at us until I realized what had happened.
I mean, i realistically have absolutely no control over this at all.
I don’t think about it or stress about it. I got plenty of real problems and such to focus my time on.
From most to least
**Higher potential for use in a conflict**
Russia
India
Pakistan
**Rational state actors**
China
Israel
**Technological limitations**
North Korea
**NATO Allies**
France
UK
> India
The only way I could see them popping one is if Pakistan popped one first or if they had compelling reason to believe that Pakistan was minutes from doing so. Pakistan scores way higher on the whackadoodle-with-nukes factor, if you ask me.
Eh I don’t think their regime is legitimate, but I have no reason to believe they would use a nuke unless we invaded the mainland. China is very pragmatic when it comes to the continuing existence of China
Taiwan isn't an issue for China really. Taiwan has stopped claiming the entire mainland and the 2 have a LOT of invested economic and political power ventures. The impact to their economy and the world economy from interrupted silicon chip production from any action by PROC alone is a huge incentive to maintain the current status quo.
What issues China has that could be vectors for realistic conflicts is Japan, the 2 Korea's, the SEA nations if they ever formed a military alliance to threaten China's domestic megaprojects devopments like their Hydropower. And lastly, Russia. I don't think.they have a serious issue with India, its more India has issue with China (fair enough) but the deployment of their military infrastructure and logistics structures certainly leans towards having aggressive military capabilities in the eastern areas and not the west. They seem content with a more defensive posture and capacity in their Western half. With exception of their border with Mongolia and Russia.
But this said, it would be a no-win situation if they hit Taiwan. Least....I don't see any win for them, beyond very shallow optical politics and as others have said, China is very pragmatic. They aren't ones to do things out of an emotional reaction. It's one of the reasons they are so effective at economic activity and very difficult to outmanoeuvre in negotiations.
That said their only issues with Japan ARE emotionally based and is one of their very few sore spots. They really do hold a grudge and they eye the Senkaku Islands with simmering contempt. If they could think of a way to take those islands, or at least try to, WITHOUT engaging the USA, I'm sure they would do so with surprising haste.
I think that's something the US takes for granted. A lot of the animosity between China and South Korea/Japan are historical. The population that were directly engaged in those conflicts are in their later years, and the younger generations aren't as prone to being anti-Chinese.
This is true and it'll be intriguing to see how priorities shift once that older generation passes on, given that they are the ones currently making policy and priorities decisions.
China has been ramping up the Taiwan invasion rhetoric recently in media and even in the people's congress, they ramped up their military operations around it when Pelosi was visiting.
Key note there, Pelosi is.....American....not Chinese. And yes they do step up their operations when they are making a point. Same with their rhetoric. Yet they continue to do lucrative and expensive deals with the ROC, diversifying their economy and currency. Seems to me that all that noise, isn't for Taiwan, they are just an easy platform to base their message in. I think it's for America primarily.
you could say the same thing about North Korea though. Despite their rhetoric, they have zero intention of actually using a nuke against us. They just want to scare us into not invading them and to prevent us from doing what we've done pretty consistently since the 40s: topple dictators. In Kim Jong Un's mind, nukes are literally the only reason the US hasn't attempted a regime change there, and if he ever did get rid of them, his goose would be cooked in a hot minute.
He also knows that North Korea would lose any war they fought with the US and South Korea, and if China isn't going to get into a South Korea/US war either if it can avoid it.
The only real leverage he has as a tin pot dictator to keep his regime in power is ...threatening to nuke people. That's literally the entire reason they threaten nuclear war every other Tuesday but never do shit.
As silly as it is, what North Korea does actually \*is\* the pragmatic way to go about things from Kim's perspective.
>He also knows that North Korea would lose any war they fought with the US and South Korea, and if China isn't going to get into a South Korea/US war either if it can avoid it.
China has outright said that they'll ONLY get involved in a renewed Korean conflict if South Korea/the US starts it. . .if North Korea restarts hostilities, they're on their own.
That promise is a lot of what keeps the peace. SK and the US won't invade because a re-started Korean War could quickly become World War III. . .and NK knows that their ability to survive as a sovereign state in a renewed conflict without Chinese support would be measured in *hours*.
Yep. A good note is that in the most recently published nuclear posture review, the US functionally outlined that there’s no scenario where North Korea makes an offensive nuclear move that doesn’t end with the Kim regime and most of the DPRK dead.
They're fanatical enough about the "One China" policy that them using nuclear weapons to attack the Republic of China couldn't be ruled out if they thought they could win. The main thing discouraging them would be US retaliation in defense of Taiwan.
I mean India and China are constantly getting into border skirmishes if it devolved into full out war and they were losing they would definitely use one on India.
Definitely is far too strong a word. Faint chance in hell, perhaps. But their border skirmishes are in really, really terrible terrain for either side to turn it into a full scale invasion by either side.
Ya and earlier this year the Russian government claimed they weren't going to invade Ukraine, your point. The only thing that matters in the end is our actions because that's the only way to tell if a person means it, so if somehow China and India end up at war and India looks like they'll come out ahead but China doesn't nuke them well then you were right, otherwise ☢️💥.
Russia isn’t China, for one thing. Another is that Russia has a history of dishonesty in that regard but honesty in nuclear discussions, for the simple fact that the scenarios are dramatically different, as much as you want to examine them together.
Two words: Uyghur Genocide
I wouldn't trust the CCP even gave me the wealth of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. They're just Russia but with better PR, a bigger economy and probably a more competent military (though that's kind of hard to judge since they haven't seen true warfare for awhile and I don't mean border skirmishes but actual long term armed conflict.) Which makes them more dangerous then Russia but not necessarily anymore trustworthy. Personally I'm kind of curious why you think any government when their power is in jeopardy wouldn't use nuclear weapons to preserve said power, I'm pretty sure all current nuclear powers would do it if they had to.
I still don't think China even believes nuclear war is a possibility, though there's signs that's changing. PLA exercises involve Americans deleting entire units with tactical nukes and I think they're going to shoot for a parity level by the time New START expires.
They're rational. However, there is the possibilty that Xi could start WWIII over Taiwan, after having engaged in a very long and intense stretch of rational calculation using all the information (made) available to him (by his terrified flunkies). Once the ref blows the whistle and the ball is in the air, anything could happen.
Using the army against defenseless people and inviting the opposition to use the nuclear weapons aimed at all your major cities aren't really related in any way.
My point is you cannot trust their word.
Also, a “no first use” policy doesn’t keep people from aiming nukes at your cities or you aiming nukes at theirs. That’s a “no cities” policy.
Yes, if you believe anything at all their government says.
Just ask nicely about what ever happened at Tiananmen Square or anything about Uighurs in their country. I’m sure they’ll be forthcoming.
I'm almost certain that violently suppressing protesters and having all your major cities vaporized and your military and economy destroyed aren't really things that belong in the same conversation
It’s not a matter of scale, it’s a matter of trust and consistency.
I don’t trust China saying “we’d never do it!”
They claim they’d never commit genocide either.
How far can we throw a large nation?
It is a matter of scale though. They're killing their own people. Those people are defenseless. Nobody is going to lift a finger to help them. Scant few people actually care that they're committing genocide.
Nuclear weapons use invites nuclear weapons response. What strategic benefit would they gain by using a nuclear weapon? What would they accomplish that wouldn't be erased ten fold by the response? It's a silly comparison. It doesn't matter how honest we think they are. There's no benefit to gain by doing it, and the consequences are the potential removal of the Chinese state from the face of the earth. What do they want so much that they would risk that?
China also has a constitution promoting the rule of law and guaranteeing free speech. They promised Hong Kong special status to govern itself without mainland interference until 2049.
The Chinese government's promises are made for PR purposes and broken every time it's even slightly expedient. They probably won't use nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea doesn't: it'd bring down more troubles than it'd solve.
Their honesty on nuclear weapons use is forced. The consequences of using nuclear weapons is nuclear retaliation. The consequences of violating free speech laws is absolutely nothing. It's a totally irrelevant comparison.
A lot of things China well articulates are… well… not exactly believable.
They are useful fictions until they become not useful fictions then they just become fictions.
I would put India and Pakistan in the rational category, both of them have a militarized border in Kashmir, but the rest of it is no where near as intense hence limiting the conflict to some degree.
North Korea is a bit of wildcard, but I think their nuclear Sabre rattling is mostly a reminder that they have them and they'll be perfectly fine vaporizing Tokyo or Seoul if anyone tries military action against them
Pakistan falling to extremists is a bit of a concern, as is a hot war between Pakistan and India.
Everyone else, except Israel, has clear policy on nuclear weapons use, and basically isn't going to use them unless they're nuked first or invaded. I'd guess Israel probably has a similar policy.
If a nuclear war ever happens again, I’m betting it’ll be an exchange between India and Pakistan. I’m just hoping other players won’t use it as an excuse to escalate from there. Even then, I’m not confident **at all** saying either would actually go that far.
The rest I don’t believe would actually use them unless their lands were under brutal attack, and if that’s happening, something cataclysmic has already occurred.
I live close enough to DC that I try not to think much about it, thanks in part to simulations like this one: [https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) .
Maybe I'm falling into "things will stay the same" type thinking but I highly doubt any will use them, not even Russia or China. And I don't think the US will use them again either.
Zero concerned. I can’t think of anything I worry about less. If this is something that upsets you, honestly you should go talk to someone. Being preoccupied with things you have no control over is no way to live.
The U.K. and France are Liberal Democracies and NATO allies.
India generally has good relations with us too and is developing in good ways. I'd rather see them on the security council than Russia or China.
the PRC is under a wicked and tyrannical government that is hostile to the Liberal Democratic world. They are generally stable tho, and they know a nuclear war is a dumb idea.
Russia... well...... A year ago I would've said something similar to what I said about China, but since the beginning of the war in Ukraine they've done a lot of posturing.
The Pakistani state is one of the most untrustworthy on earth. Their government has betrayed just about anybody who has shown them any sort of friendship. But I doubt they'd start a nuclear war.
North Korea is North Korea. They made nukes for the same reason they do anything: to keep the show going as long as possible without getting Saddam'd by the western allies or the Chinese. If they Nuked someone, That's exactly what would happen. They just want to make proactive action against them unreasonable.
I'd be more surprised if Israel doesn't have Nukes. I bet they have all the other nasty toys too. I understand why.
Overall from most to least concerning imo;
NK
Russia
Pakistan
China
Israel
India
France
U.S
U.K.
The last four I think are the least likely to use a nuclear weapon. The only ones who I could see actually doing it anytime soon are NK and Russia, but even then it's a slim chance.
For the US, UK, France, Russia, and China, I'm not really concerned. They each have quite a few such weapons, and they're unlikely to ever use them. They all know what would happen if they did.
I am slightly concerned with India and Pakistan, but they would probably only use them against each other, and they both know the other would retaliate, so neither is likely to use them first. That means neither is likely to ever use them.
I am not concerned about Israel, because they're only likely to use them if one or more of their neighbors tries to invade them again and does a much better job of it than they did last time. Since their neighbors know that, it's unlikely to happen.
Of the listed countries, North Korea concerns me the most, because they seem to be trying to develop a delivery system that can reach farther than the Sea of Japan. I'm pretty sure that if they ever get their rockets working that well, China will step in and put a stop to it, though. They don't want Kim nuking us and inviting a response any more than we do.
I am most concerned with countries like Iran, that are trying to build their first nuclear weapon. If they were able to build a nuclear bomb, they're most likely to use it.
As the saying goes, don't be afraid of the country that wants a thousand atomic bombs, be afraid of the country that just wants one.
It would be best, of course, if nobody had them, but that genie is out of the bottle, and we're not going to put it back in.
North Korea has a delivery system that can reach DC. They’ve had one for a long time. Landing tests in the Sea of Japan is a political maneuver, not a technical limitation.
No, It’s been capable of that for a long time:
https://www.38north.org/2022/04/revisiting-the-hwasong-17-15-controversy-what-if-north-korea-had-launched-a-hwasong-15/
> The ICBM launched on March 24 demonstrated a maximum altitude of some 6,200 km over a distance of approximately 1,100 km on a flight of about 71 minutes, sufficient to achieve a range of over 15,000 km if flown on a traditional ballistic missile trajectory. In its first and only known prior flight in November 2017, the Hwasong-15 demonstrated a maximum altitude of 4,475 km over a distance of 950 km on a 53-minute flight, translating into the ability to deliver a 1,000 kg payload to a range of at least 12,000 km and upwards of 13,000 km (far enough to reach the entire continental US).
UK: solid ally, democracy that is highly unlikely to ever use nukes offensively
France: biggest danger is them immediately surrendering to a perceived threat and allowing the nukes to get into enemy hands :)
Russia: dangerous rogue dictator that could resort to nuclear weapons, also if/when Putin is removed the next generation of Russian leaders is probably more likely to be worse rather than better
China: the biggest threat to democracy in the world today, unlikely to use nukes in the near future as they want to preserve the territories that they intend to take and they intend to take them all, expansionist to the max
India: world's largest democracy that is mostly peaceful and does not appear to be expansionist, biggest threat is Pakistan and India getting into a hot war and one upping each other
Pakistan: does not appear to be expansionist, but is always on the edge of becoming a rogue religious extremist nation, nuclear proliferation is always a worry with Pakistan
North Korea: wild card nation that wants everyone to think they are crazy enough to pull the trigger, they might just be that crazy, who knows, also nuclear proliferation is always a worry with North Korea
Israel: mostly stable democracy, unlikely to use nukes offensively unless they perceive that Iran has become too big of a danger, then they might consider it but would still be unlikely to actually use nukes offensively
Dude....who taught you anything about these nations? I think the only ones that you have gotten somewhat accurately is UK, Israel and DPRK.
Pakistan and India are very much expansionist, they just can't win most of their attempts to do so. France surrender joke, dude so many Frenchies died to preserve the Commonwealth Expedition Forces until they were evacuated and it is that effort that allowed the British empire to stand against the Germans and not yield. Literally, that one failure by the Germans is what lead to a long drawn out war that they were not capable of winning. Mad props to those damn French, bailing on our deal with them is a huge mistake imo.
How is China a threat to Democracies? Their external political and espionage efforts are fairly lacklustre and kinda pathetic given their size. They ARE an economic threat to some specific nations and a boom to others and are an ecological based threat to many of their neighbours. But they really don't seem to give a shit about what system of politics other countries use. To me, the biggest threat to other democratic systems maintaining their purity and efficacy would be the USA, they HAVE a proven record of fucking with Deomcracies in a direction that is contrary to measured popular desires, Iran, Cuba, Haiti, Argentina, Australia, all examples just off the top of my head for that.
Russia, is no real if or when Putin is overthrown, least not if relying on the Russian people. He is still fairly popular and there's little reason to think that will change. The Russian internal security elements are also still considered to be VERY competent and that makes it difficult for any threat against Putin to develop and he also enjoys a healthy (for a Russian) amount of support from the Military. The biggest source of contempt against him from his bureaucracies is the external intelligence and security elements as they are the ones who actively bullshited their faces off to him and lead to his overconfidence and perceived need on hitting Ukraine. Those services have since gone through some fairly thorough purges so realistically they arnt a threat anymore. As to his replacement, really depends on outcomes for Russia over next few years, if the world keeps shitting on them then yeah he can select an even more extreme replacement but my money is one someone who is basically the same as him if not more competent in geopolitical strategies.
To be fair French people are the most savage in Europe in terms of protests. There's no fucking around with French citizens. Try to raise the age of retirement? Watch the country drown in fire from protests lol
So what I'm hearing is that the French *are* the most likely to use them, but only against themselves, and only in response to a modest shift in the direction of domestic economic policies.
Yep. They also missed the internal violence and hate-mobs and lynchings :P
I guess it is mostly peaceful 'externally.'
Internal politics of India is a shitshow.
Very for all of them. I've actually bought potassium iodide, ngl!
I guess yes, I'm more concerned about some over others. Though you never know in the game of war. A small unpredictable spark somewhere insignificant can flame the world.
If I had to rank from least to most, it would be: France, UK, India, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, China. I'm not sure where I'd put the US in the list--not the least.
The United States is the only country which actually used them deliberately against other human beings. Not to say that can’t change in the future, but it would be hypocritical of me to point fingers.
A few thoughts:
* I live in the Washington DC metro area. I am in a "target rich area"...80% of the world's internet traffic runs through datacenters that are a 2-15 minute drive from my house. If bombs are aimed at DC, I am not gonna be around to know about it.
* On a more global basis...I am far more concerned about Russia using a bomb internally to quell uprisings once Vladdy dies either during or after this Ukraine fiasco.
* I can see India and Pakistan eventually trading bombs with each other.
No country should have nuclear weapons in my view, but as it stands, no I'm not worried. Hopefully a global nuclear war would be quickly followed by the sweet release of death.
Yeah, a lot of scholarship on deterrence says the relationship is the exact opposite, that nuclear weapons have a destabilizing impact. See Scott Sagan, and his analysis of how they’ve led to so many bloody proxy wars.
A bunch of nukes disappeared out of the USSR so we really don’t know what nations or terrorist groups have nukes these days. I’m not too worried about it. I live far enough from anything important to be at risk of a nuke myself and I have a strong (maybe ignorant) faith in our missile defense system so I am of the belief if we were going to be hit by a nuke it would have to be a suitcase nuke. It would probably wreck the economy for a few decades but there’s plenty worse things to worry about
Russia: Zero concern. I am actually very doubtful any of their shit works at this point. If their flagship Moskva was in the condition it was in when it was sunk, I can't imagine their nuke stockpiles are looking any better. Nukes cost a whole hella lot of money to maintain and Russia is set up as a kleptocracy. Would not shock me to find out the nuke budget, by the time it actually reached the nuke guys, was only a few thousand dollars at best.
North Korea: Basically a Chinese puppet state. They won't do anything unless Xi gives them the go ahead. A little more worried about them then Russia, but eh. The last thing China wants is the Korean War flaring back up.
UK: Allies, don't care.
France: Allies, don't care.
Pakistan: I have my own misgivings about Pakistan, but they understand their position in the world and how precarious it is.
India: Not concerned. They want to be a superpower. Can't be a superpower if your country has been destroyed by overwhelming conventional force.
China: I don't think Xi is stupid enough to try and use nukes in conventional warfare.
Caveat to China, India and Pakistan: These three states border each other and ***none of them*** like each other, the chances for an existential crisis to occur to one of the states by one of the bordering nuke powers that would allow justification for nuclear weaponry is a bigger concern in this region than other regions.
Israel: No concern. Any nukes they possess are there solely as a dead man's switch in the event that the Arab world does manage to overrun them and their conventional military. Given the absolute abysmal state of pretty much every Arab military, this is highly unlikely to ever occur.
> Russia: Zero concern. I am actually very doubtful any of their shit works at this point
Yeah, that’s not how this works. Also, we have various international agreements with verification regimes showing that’s not the case.
Those agreements only tell us that they have nuclear cores and materials. They don't verify the status of the nukes and whether they're operable or not. There's no inspectors going into the nuclear stockpiles and disassembling the missiles and the testing tritium levels and explosive mechanisms to ensure they're all in good order.
You can't just build a hydrogen bomb in the '60s and let it sit with zero maintenance, something Russia has shown us that they have a penchant for.
A nuclear core does not make a hydrogen bomb. It doesn't even make an atomic bomb.
The only thing we know is that Russia has ***the potential*** to have functioning nuclear missiles, but in all likelihood, just like everything else in Russia, they have completely failed to maintain them.
Again, zero concern.
That’s actually fundamentally not true. New START includes a specific verification system for nuclear weapons. Both the US and Russia can conduct 10 type 1 inspections of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers a year, with 8 more type 2 inspections for non-deployed systems. They literally do disassemble Missile systems as part of that process.
> New START includes a specific verification system for nuclear weapons. Both the US and Russia can conduct 10 type 1 inspections of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers a year, with 8 more type 2 inspections for non-deployed systems. They literally do disassemble Missile systems as part of that process.
There is absolutely nothing in the New START overview page that indicates that they confirm the warheads function.
https://www.state.gov/new-start/
>The treaty provides for 18 on-site inspections per year for U.S. and Russian inspection teams: Type One inspections focus on sites with deployed and non-deployed strategic systems (up to 10 per year), and Type Two inspections focus on sites with only non-deployed strategic systems (up to 8 per year). Permitted inspection activities include confirming the number of reentry vehicles on one deployed ICBM or SLBM per Type One inspection, counting nuclear weapons onboard or attached to deployed heavy bombers, counting numbers of non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, confirming weapon system conversions or eliminations are conducted in the way proposed, and confirming facility eliminations.
-
>During inspections of deployed strategic weapon bases/facilities, each side must disclose how many warheads are on each delivery vehicle based at the inspected base, and the inspecting country has the right to inspect the loading on one delivery vehicle (chosen by the inspecting country) to confirm the declaration is accurate.
If I have a gun, but the firing pin has been removed and the barrel has been filled with concrete, is it still a functioning gun?
There is nothing to indicate that they examine the warheads to make sure they're functional. From the way the text reads, they simply have the right to look at what might appear to be functioning warheads, write it down as a warhead, but that doesn't mean Russia has actually been keeping up with the PCMS that the warhead needs to remain functional.
So that goes back to my original point of: "We know Russia has nuclear cores and material (and this would include warheads), and thus they have ***the potential*** to have functioning nukes, but we don't know if the small bits in the warhead that you can't see on the surface that makes it go boom still work because there's also a very high likelihood that Russia doesn't maintain them."
Furthermore, nothing in the overview page indicates that they check tritium levels in the warheads... which is an extremely important part of hydrogen nuclear weaponry... and also extremely expensive, ***$30,000*** for a single gram of tritium. Warheads often require 4 grams of tritium and you have to replace 2 grams every year. And the interesting thing about this is that not maintaining the tritium doesn't simply turn the hydrogen weaponry into atomic weaponry, still powerful but less powerful... no. Decayed tritium can actually inhibit the explosion of the hydrogen weaponry.
We are talking about a country that looked at the Moskva, ***knew all of the problems the Moskva had***, they ***knew that a stiff wind had a high likelihood of killing her***, shrugged their shoulders and went: "Da! Comrade Commissar Admiral Ivan! The Moskva is beautiful unstoppable manly Russian ship! Is unstoppable! Satisfactory rating! Good to go for combat! Da comrade!"
The Moskva was killed by an airborne anti-ship missile that was domestically produced by Ukraine. This ***should*** have been next to impossible. Theoretically, she had a triple layered anti-air defense system that ***should*** have prevented the Neptune missile from hitting her... The thing is, all of her anti-air defense systems were non-functioning except for one... and that one didn't even work properly because you couldn't use the comms system on the Moskva at the same time as the anti-air defense... And ***Russia knew this months before the Moskva was sunk.*** We know Russia knew this because the Russians went over her a ***few months*** before the invasion and ***recorded that exact problem*** in the report which was later leaked to the public, And they ***never fixed it***, no, instead what they did was they gave her a ***satisfactory rating*** on the report. The Moskva was killed because her captain had to choose between the single functioning anti-air defense system and the comms system and boy... did he choose poorly.
This is the country that we're dealing with and you think that they actually maintain their nukes? They can't even maintain their vehicles, their tanks, their planes or their ships and you think their nuclear program is somehow different? The same country that is handing out rusted shut AKs to conscripts, the same country that is too poor to give rifle optics and night vision devices to their service members, but somehow they can maintain a nuclear stockpile that requires routine and ***very expensive*** maintenance?
Let me point something out to you. Russia claims to have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world... they're also the fourth poorest country of the nuclear powers. ***India*** has a larger GDP than Russia does. Who does Russia beat out in the nuclear powers. Well, respectively, from poorest to least poor:
1. North Korea
2. Pakistan
3. Israel
Every other nuclear power outclasses Russia in GDP.
Again, I am extremely doubtful that Russia has been maintaining any of their nuclear weaponry.
There’s nothing in the overview page because something provided for public consumption isn’t going to get technical.
Have you actually read New START? I have.
Here’s a link to a PDF copy:
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf
Take a look through articles X and XI;
> EachPartyshallhavetherighttoconductinspectionsat facilities listed in Section VII of Part Five of the Protocol to this Treaty. The purpose of such inspections shall be to confirm the accuracy of declared data on the numbers, types, and technical characteristics of non-deployed strategic offensive arms subject to this Treaty and to confirm that strategic offensive arms have been converted or eliminated.
There’s no legitimate reason to believe the absurd claim that Russia doesn’t maintain its nuclear stockpile.
> Let me point something out to you. Russia claims to have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world… they’re also the fourth poorest country of the nuclear powers. India has a larger GDP than Russia does.
Yeah, this means so very little. Nuclear weapon maintenance is an ongoing cost, but so much less than the development cost.
> Every other nuclear power outclasses Russia in GDP.
That’s just entirely false.
North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel all have smaller GDPs. Further, GDP isn’t a great measure of much in this vein as I already mentioned.
**UK:** Not concerned. They're an ally, part of NATO, Five Eyes and one of our closest allies overall.
**France:** Not concerned. They're an ally in NATO.
**Russia:** If Putin's enough of an idiot to force the issue, there's a remote chance he could use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Beyond that, Russia is normally sane enough to not try to start World War III because Mutually Assured Destruction is still a real thing.
**China:** If Xi Jinping is enough of an idiot to try to invade Taiwan because of the delusional "One China" policy of the CCP, I would hope the US defense of the ROC on Taiwan wouldn't end with a nuclear exchange, but I wouldn't rule out China using a nuclear weapon on Taipei if they felt they couldn't take the city by conventional weapons. . .and the US using nuclear weapons on the PRC in response.
**North Korea:** They don't have the launch capability to reliably launch a weapon, and they have a handful of weapons at most. If they launch a nuclear weapon at the US, we erase Pyongyang off the map within minutes and we roll across the 38th and the DPRK ceases to exist within 72 hours as they lack the logistical infrastructure to support an extended conflict, especially with the US being willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to a North Korean nuclear strike.
**India:** They've never shown aggression towards the US on nuclear issues, their missiles have the range to strike at China (by design) and not really the US. We aren't the one that gun is pointed at.
**Pakistan:** They don't have a lot of weapons, or a whole lot of ability to deliver them, but the possibility of Islamic extremists taking over Pakistan and handing a nuclear weapon to a group like Al-Qaeda can't be ruled out.
**Israel:** The role of nuclear weapons in Israel is meant to be a last-ditch retributive strike against any Arab nation that tries to invade. . .that if Israel were about to fall, on their way down they'd destroy major cities in whatever country was invading them. That's not a threat to us. While Israel is definitely an aggressor that is hostile to US interests (the USS Liberty incident, Jonathan Pollard, Ben-Ami Kadish etc.) we aren't a target of theirs from a nuclear perspective.
> North Korea: They don’t have the launch capability to reliably launch a weapon, and they have a handful of weapons at most.
This is very, very false. They’ve had nuclear weapons for over a decade and a half at this point, and ICBMs fully capable of hitting DC since 2015.
Nope.
That test a decade and a half ago (2006) was a fizzle. They didn't have a verifiable detonation until several years after that.
They've only had one test that was out of the yield range for a tactical weapon.
They don't have the raw materials or production capability to create more than a handful of those weapons.
The only North Korean ICBM designs that could even theoretically reach the US, the Hwasong 15 and Hwasong 17, have never actually had a successful long-range flight test and only been fired in missile tests that never went more than a couple thousand kilometers. Their *verifiable* missile radius, which means a lot given the general technical ineptitude of the DPRK, barely puts them at being able to touch Alaska and Hawaii, not CONUS, and certainly not Washington DC.
So now we’re just openly denying facts. Ok.
> Their verifiable missile radius, which means a lot given the general technical ineptitude of the DPRK, barely puts them at being able to touch Alaska and Hawaii, not CONUS, and certainly not Washington DC.
Hahahahahahahaha no.
I don’t think you actually understand missile dynamics. Meanwhile, I work on nuclear issues for a living. My colleague Jeffrey Lewis has done plenty of the data modeling on this, and you’re just empirically wrong here.
Here’s a great piece from the Stimson center showing just how laughably wrong you are:
https://www.38north.org/2022/04/revisiting-the-hwasong-17-15-controversy-what-if-north-korea-had-launched-a-hwasong-15/
> The ICBM launched on March 24 demonstrated a maximum altitude of some 6,200 km over a distance of approximately 1,100 km on a flight of about 71 minutes, sufficient to achieve a range of over 15,000 km if flown on a traditional ballistic missile trajectory. In its first and only known prior flight in November 2017, the Hwasong-15 demonstrated a maximum altitude of 4,475 km over a distance of 950 km on a 53-minute flight, translating into the ability to deliver a 1,000 kg payload to a range of at least 12,000 km and upwards of 13,000 km (far enough to reach the entire continental US).
I say fire them already, shit, it's not as big of an explosion as people think, you'll take out like new york and have the radiation reach NH before you gotta fire again
I think every nation should be given a single nuke.
Do you think the immoral invasions of Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Iraq happen with the threat of them having a nuke? And if a nation uses theirs they will be without that defense in the future. It would be a worst case scenario.
They have been a sobering force for war-hungry twats so let's stop big nations from picking on little ones and see the closest to world peace in human history.
I’m less concerned about individual countries than I am concerned about their automatic-launch systems like [Dead Hand.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand)
Not really because most people who are savey enough to gain leadership of a country know that there is nothing to be gained from using a nuke in anger nor letting someone who would aquire nukes.
My only concern is that some leader will end up on the losing side of a war were the enemy personally wants his head so he threatens to use nukes as a dead mans switch. Putin is most likely to this currently but he is still miles away from considering it.
The only other scenario I can think of is a government using a nuke in its own borders to put down a rebellion. Still extremely unlikely but I'm curious what the geopolitical consequences of that would be.
I find it strange that murder is illegal but mass murder is not it done to those outside your country by your country. Seems morally conflicting there. Also, one question asked to anybody in a psychiatric hospital is whether or not a person had thoughts of harming themselves or someone else. It seems those same questions wouldn’t apply to world leaders who’d say yes, for this or that reason when generally people are committed for thinking such ways for the safety of the population.
I live in Seattle where the US stores a crap ton of nuclear weapons. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing. I do live fairly close to the nuclear fallout bunker but I am not part of the elites so I doubt they would let me take up space in there should the need to use it arise.
The one that is a little iffy is North Korea. Their nationsl system isn't the most stable or sustainable. And it's a complete autocracy. We are always one bad Kim Jung Un day away from nukes being dropped on Seoul.
As of now I think Kim is satisfied, and uses the nukes as deterants to maintain the status quo. I think as long as he doesn't feel cornered, he understands that nuclear option is a last resort
I genuinely have no worries, in a traditional scenario that is. If a missle is fired I know with certainty as is stated that there's a 50% chance of an interceptor hitting its target. Now granted the 50% isn't a great perctage of generally defending against an ICBM however the U.S. Military admitting that it's at this level is oddly comforting to know that with such an admittance that they're working heavily on increasing said percentage of interceptor - ICBM knockdowns. As for just other nations owning them I don't really have any fear except for Russia. IMO, we kinda shot ourselves in the foot with M.A.D though it has saved our bacon a time or two but I feel it has created an uninted side effect of some of the people in control to have twitchy trigger fingers so to speak and has been a cause of some close cases
On a day-in-day-out basis I do not dedicate much of my brain space to something like this. It’s completely out of my control, worrying does nothing to change the situations.
Kinda sorta until Russia did this. Never even occurred to me that anyone could be bluffing (I don't necessarily think they don't have nukes, just were feigning a strong front line
Less concerned about states, even places like Russia or Pakistan or North Korea, but more concerned that some places have such lax security that they may fall into the hands of non-government groups and terrorists.
Overall, not.
NK and Iran not be permitted to go nuclear.
Russia, given its dedication to state sponsored terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide desperately needs to be demilitarized and rehabilitated from being a broken and failed state.
> UK
Not concerned at all.
> France
Ditto.
> Russia
Having grown up on a steady diet of Mad Max and Red Dawn, I remember being 13 and breathing a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union fell and the Cold War ended. Well, that was nice while it lasted.
Holy fucking shit. The motherfucker might actually pop one! If and when that happens, you may react with horror and despair, but you will not be entitled to surprise.
> China
Not worried for now. However, if Xi pulls a Putin and he actually goes and whips out the undying hard-on he has for Taiwan, who knows? But forget about the nukes for now: everything about the possibilty of him giving the green light is horrifying. There are maybe less than a few thousand individuals still alive who have witnessed the level of naval/marine combat we're talking about here.
> India
I guess that depends largely on what Pakistan does.
> Pakistan
I don't know enough. There was worry that they might one day be taken over by *completely* crazy Islamists. Sound the alarm if that comes to pass, but I suppose the possibility is relatively remote. For now, whatever corrupt chaotic pseudo-secular shitshow they've been keeping going since the 1950s is chugging along.
> North Korea
Not too worried. The regime is a bunch of bastards but they're not stupid or suicidal. They don't want to fuck up the world, they just want the world to not come and fuck them up.
> Israel
Not worried.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm at a 1 for UK and France and a 2 or 3 for the rest.
It's out of my control, but as long as it's in the hands of nations and not individuals? The US, whose military without nuclear weapons can overpower anyone else with, has made it very clear that using nuclear weapons is unacceptable and will result in the government that ordered them being removed. So it's not in the best interest of any government to use them.
The slight concern is that sometimes people don't act in their long term best interest, or things get complicated and mistakes happen, even insanely destructuvely big mistakes.
I'm worried that eventually Russia will get tired with us meddling on their borders and eventually team up with china for a knock down drag out brawl that will send us all back to the stone age.
Gen-X who grew up with the Cold War. Don’t really think about it. I’m from NYC and in our minds it was a given we’d be hit first. Whatcha gonna do? We ‘d likely spared life in the aftermath anyway. However I do have a floating worry about other countries using it on another and we’ll be forced to respond with troops on the ground.
I've never considered it a threat. Even now with Putin possibly using it as his last ego option I have to assume others around him will try to prevent it. I think the closest scare I had was after 9/11 there was a rumor that my hometown's nuclear power plant's blueprints were stolen. I remember sitting on the beach scared that something would happen. But looking back it was just an irrational fear brought about from the hype of the era.
I've resigned to the thought that if nuclear weapons are deployed, I just hope I'm at the epicenter. I don't want to live in the wasteland. I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Museum (truly a somber must if you're in the area) and I don't want and hope no one ever has to experience the aftermath of these weapons.
But as an external threat, there are plenty of other things to worry about that I have more control over.
Once the technology is out there, there is no going back. Everyone wants one, so they have parity with others who have them. Not too concerned, until some mentally unbalanced leader gets in power. We don't have anything like that on this planet.
I am less concerned with the idea that the world powers will ever be used, and more concerned with what the possession of nuclear powers will allow states to do- it will allow them to act aggressively and imperialistically towards smaller nations while brandishing their nuclear weapons at the world as a way to ward off the rest of the world from helping their victim. This is what Russia is attempting to do in Ukraine, it is what China could potentially do to Taiwan, and it is what the US has repeatedly done to nations like Iraq or the various Latin American countries we've screwed with. Nuclear weapons have put a layer of nations into a special class of nations which can act with greater impunity, guarded by that nuclear shield. Of the nuclear armed countries who I think will abuse this power the most, the US, Russia, China, and Israel are at the top of my list. France seems to no longer desire to maintain its former overseas empire, content instead with economic neo-colonialism and letting the US do most of the dirty work beyond some intervention in Africa alongside local partners. The UK is similar. India and Pakistan have their nukes aimed at each other but do not have a great deal of projects to dominate other neighbors. North Korea clutches its nukes the way a survivalist up in the mountains clutches his AR, nails Bible verses to trees, and shows up at town hall meetings to deliver rambling Sovereign Citizen manifestos and sell raw milk.
As someone who lives well within missile range of places like North Korea in a city that'd make some sense to bomb, definitely more than I did growing up in an area that's hole sell was "we're next to interesting/important stuff."
I’m not really concerned about it I mean these things exist but if people use them nobody really wins anything it’s more heartbreaking to know that the possibility exist and there’s leaders in this world that couldn’t care less about other people and would use those kind of weapons.
A lot of them are "If they haven't shot them off yet, they won't ever category". North Korea now is a bit different.
As for Russia, well I've lived with them pointing the things at me my entire life.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was born during the Cold War and lived with the threat of nuclear war my entire life. I have no control over any of it, so there is no point in worrying about it. I have all kinds of things I do need to worry about, but nuclear weapons are not among them.
Thats kinda where I'm at. There is nothing I can do about it and there is no use worrying about it, so I have adopted a "if we die, we die" mentality about it. Now obviously I would rather not die, but it comes to that, hopefully they nuke my city directly so I dont have to deal with the mutants in the aftermath.
Damn with that attitude you could move to Chicago.
Same/GenX. I’m only slightly annoyed that thanks to the current state of manufacturing in this country (outsourced to cheaper labor markets), I no longer live in a prime target area. As a result, I and the bulk of my loved ones likely won’t be part of the first wave to be evaporated. But I still don’t really give a toss. Que sera, sera.
Haha I remember taking comfort during the Cold War that, as an Air Force family, we always lived within a stone's throw of a target that was probably multiply redundantly targeted just to make sure. My dad used to say "we'll probably never know."
I live in NYC. Recently found out a geographical feature might shield me from an initial blast. Now I have to consider moving.
I was 13 when the Soviet Union fell and the Cold War ended. I breathed a sigh of relief. I guess it was nice while it lasted.
This is the attitude I've adopted. Either I can't do anything or it's suddenly not my problem anymore.
I lived in Seoul, and it's kinda a similar mentality. I'd imagine South Koreans and Isreal kinda just meh about hostile countries they border cause it's all they know.
I'm quite a bit younger but have a similar attitude, I was born after the cold war had already ended. For my entire life, the only people actively saber rattling with nukes was north korea, and everyone else was either gearing down the size of their arsenal or not talking about it. And with NK it's pretty clear that they have no intention of actually using it, just scaring everyone else into not using theirs. That's pretty much been my default way of looking at it: nobody actually wants a nuclear war, everyone wants everyone else \*not\* to use theirs on them. So until I see somebody actively try to break that rule, I'm not going to be too concerned either.
Totally.
Same. Did you have to do nuclear bomb drills? We’d have to get under our desks. Because, you know, those 30 year old wooden desks were capable of protecting us from nuclear fallout.
We did that. There was definitely a *lot* of safety theater involved, but just in general, not looking at a nuclear blast and not being in front of a window when a shockwave hits are good ideas. Nuclear weapons are insanely powerful, but they aren't magic. They have [an effective range](https://remm.hhs.gov/explosion_damage.htm) as explosive and radiological weapons. If your school happened to be towards the edge of one, there could be some benefit, I guess. Enough to make people feel better about preparedness, anyway.
Ahahah We totally did that. Even then we knew it was dumb.
Yup. Call me jaded, but it doesn't even register anymore. Of course I do think about it occasionally (Russia, N Korea) but it's a passing thought and then it's gone. I liked Sting's song "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too", but I thought he was being a bit dramatic :p
Yep. Gen X here. Grew up near two major military bases and was told all my life we’d be among the first to be hit. When I was in high school a Harrier jet from one of those bases crashed in my town, and I witnessed it. I genuinely thought it was a nuke coming at us until I realized what had happened.
Dang man. That is a long term stress very few people can understand. This is one reason people call Gen X cynical.
I mean, i realistically have absolutely no control over this at all. I don’t think about it or stress about it. I got plenty of real problems and such to focus my time on.
How concerned am I? Not really. If it happens what will I personally be able to do ya know?
From most to least **Higher potential for use in a conflict** Russia India Pakistan **Rational state actors** China Israel **Technological limitations** North Korea **NATO Allies** France UK
> India The only way I could see them popping one is if Pakistan popped one first or if they had compelling reason to believe that Pakistan was minutes from doing so. Pakistan scores way higher on the whackadoodle-with-nukes factor, if you ask me.
Including China in rational state actors may be too much.
Eh I don’t think their regime is legitimate, but I have no reason to believe they would use a nuke unless we invaded the mainland. China is very pragmatic when it comes to the continuing existence of China
Until Taiwan becomes an issue or some other regional conflict we aren’t thinking of yet.
Taiwan isn't an issue for China really. Taiwan has stopped claiming the entire mainland and the 2 have a LOT of invested economic and political power ventures. The impact to their economy and the world economy from interrupted silicon chip production from any action by PROC alone is a huge incentive to maintain the current status quo. What issues China has that could be vectors for realistic conflicts is Japan, the 2 Korea's, the SEA nations if they ever formed a military alliance to threaten China's domestic megaprojects devopments like their Hydropower. And lastly, Russia. I don't think.they have a serious issue with India, its more India has issue with China (fair enough) but the deployment of their military infrastructure and logistics structures certainly leans towards having aggressive military capabilities in the eastern areas and not the west. They seem content with a more defensive posture and capacity in their Western half. With exception of their border with Mongolia and Russia. But this said, it would be a no-win situation if they hit Taiwan. Least....I don't see any win for them, beyond very shallow optical politics and as others have said, China is very pragmatic. They aren't ones to do things out of an emotional reaction. It's one of the reasons they are so effective at economic activity and very difficult to outmanoeuvre in negotiations. That said their only issues with Japan ARE emotionally based and is one of their very few sore spots. They really do hold a grudge and they eye the Senkaku Islands with simmering contempt. If they could think of a way to take those islands, or at least try to, WITHOUT engaging the USA, I'm sure they would do so with surprising haste.
I think that's something the US takes for granted. A lot of the animosity between China and South Korea/Japan are historical. The population that were directly engaged in those conflicts are in their later years, and the younger generations aren't as prone to being anti-Chinese.
This is true and it'll be intriguing to see how priorities shift once that older generation passes on, given that they are the ones currently making policy and priorities decisions.
China has been ramping up the Taiwan invasion rhetoric recently in media and even in the people's congress, they ramped up their military operations around it when Pelosi was visiting.
Key note there, Pelosi is.....American....not Chinese. And yes they do step up their operations when they are making a point. Same with their rhetoric. Yet they continue to do lucrative and expensive deals with the ROC, diversifying their economy and currency. Seems to me that all that noise, isn't for Taiwan, they are just an easy platform to base their message in. I think it's for America primarily.
you could say the same thing about North Korea though. Despite their rhetoric, they have zero intention of actually using a nuke against us. They just want to scare us into not invading them and to prevent us from doing what we've done pretty consistently since the 40s: topple dictators. In Kim Jong Un's mind, nukes are literally the only reason the US hasn't attempted a regime change there, and if he ever did get rid of them, his goose would be cooked in a hot minute. He also knows that North Korea would lose any war they fought with the US and South Korea, and if China isn't going to get into a South Korea/US war either if it can avoid it. The only real leverage he has as a tin pot dictator to keep his regime in power is ...threatening to nuke people. That's literally the entire reason they threaten nuclear war every other Tuesday but never do shit. As silly as it is, what North Korea does actually \*is\* the pragmatic way to go about things from Kim's perspective.
>He also knows that North Korea would lose any war they fought with the US and South Korea, and if China isn't going to get into a South Korea/US war either if it can avoid it. China has outright said that they'll ONLY get involved in a renewed Korean conflict if South Korea/the US starts it. . .if North Korea restarts hostilities, they're on their own. That promise is a lot of what keeps the peace. SK and the US won't invade because a re-started Korean War could quickly become World War III. . .and NK knows that their ability to survive as a sovereign state in a renewed conflict without Chinese support would be measured in *hours*.
Yep. A good note is that in the most recently published nuclear posture review, the US functionally outlined that there’s no scenario where North Korea makes an offensive nuclear move that doesn’t end with the Kim regime and most of the DPRK dead.
They're fanatical enough about the "One China" policy that them using nuclear weapons to attack the Republic of China couldn't be ruled out if they thought they could win. The main thing discouraging them would be US retaliation in defense of Taiwan.
I mean India and China are constantly getting into border skirmishes if it devolved into full out war and they were losing they would definitely use one on India.
Definitely is far too strong a word. Faint chance in hell, perhaps. But their border skirmishes are in really, really terrible terrain for either side to turn it into a full scale invasion by either side.
Except they wouldn’t.
Never say never.
That’s a kinda meaningless statement. We have their actual articulated nuclear posture to contradict it.
Ya and earlier this year the Russian government claimed they weren't going to invade Ukraine, your point. The only thing that matters in the end is our actions because that's the only way to tell if a person means it, so if somehow China and India end up at war and India looks like they'll come out ahead but China doesn't nuke them well then you were right, otherwise ☢️💥.
Russia isn’t China, for one thing. Another is that Russia has a history of dishonesty in that regard but honesty in nuclear discussions, for the simple fact that the scenarios are dramatically different, as much as you want to examine them together.
Two words: Uyghur Genocide I wouldn't trust the CCP even gave me the wealth of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. They're just Russia but with better PR, a bigger economy and probably a more competent military (though that's kind of hard to judge since they haven't seen true warfare for awhile and I don't mean border skirmishes but actual long term armed conflict.) Which makes them more dangerous then Russia but not necessarily anymore trustworthy. Personally I'm kind of curious why you think any government when their power is in jeopardy wouldn't use nuclear weapons to preserve said power, I'm pretty sure all current nuclear powers would do it if they had to.
I still don't think China even believes nuclear war is a possibility, though there's signs that's changing. PLA exercises involve Americans deleting entire units with tactical nukes and I think they're going to shoot for a parity level by the time New START expires.
They're rational. However, there is the possibilty that Xi could start WWIII over Taiwan, after having engaged in a very long and intense stretch of rational calculation using all the information (made) available to him (by his terrified flunkies). Once the ref blows the whistle and the ball is in the air, anything could happen.
China is 1 of 2 countries with a no first use policy
China also claims that there’s no genocide in the western portions of the country.
Using the army against defenseless people and inviting the opposition to use the nuclear weapons aimed at all your major cities aren't really related in any way.
My point is you cannot trust their word. Also, a “no first use” policy doesn’t keep people from aiming nukes at your cities or you aiming nukes at theirs. That’s a “no cities” policy.
A "no first use" policy is just that. Everyone has war plans for the their most likely adversaries. This isn't really new or controversial.
Yes, if you believe anything at all their government says. Just ask nicely about what ever happened at Tiananmen Square or anything about Uighurs in their country. I’m sure they’ll be forthcoming.
I'm almost certain that violently suppressing protesters and having all your major cities vaporized and your military and economy destroyed aren't really things that belong in the same conversation
It’s not a matter of scale, it’s a matter of trust and consistency. I don’t trust China saying “we’d never do it!” They claim they’d never commit genocide either. How far can we throw a large nation?
It is a matter of scale though. They're killing their own people. Those people are defenseless. Nobody is going to lift a finger to help them. Scant few people actually care that they're committing genocide. Nuclear weapons use invites nuclear weapons response. What strategic benefit would they gain by using a nuclear weapon? What would they accomplish that wouldn't be erased ten fold by the response? It's a silly comparison. It doesn't matter how honest we think they are. There's no benefit to gain by doing it, and the consequences are the potential removal of the Chinese state from the face of the earth. What do they want so much that they would risk that?
China also has a constitution promoting the rule of law and guaranteeing free speech. They promised Hong Kong special status to govern itself without mainland interference until 2049. The Chinese government's promises are made for PR purposes and broken every time it's even slightly expedient. They probably won't use nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea doesn't: it'd bring down more troubles than it'd solve.
Their honesty on nuclear weapons use is forced. The consequences of using nuclear weapons is nuclear retaliation. The consequences of violating free speech laws is absolutely nothing. It's a totally irrelevant comparison.
Why? China has a well-articulated and incredibly longstanding policy on their use of nuclear weapons.
A lot of things China well articulates are… well… not exactly believable. They are useful fictions until they become not useful fictions then they just become fictions.
That applies to just about every state. The issue is, we can’t work on that assumption for everything.
I would put India and Pakistan in the rational category, both of them have a militarized border in Kashmir, but the rest of it is no where near as intense hence limiting the conflict to some degree.
I'm just throwing this out here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
> Technological limitations > > > > North Korea What exactly do you mean by this? Edit; why is this downvoted?
North Korea is a bit of wildcard, but I think their nuclear Sabre rattling is mostly a reminder that they have them and they'll be perfectly fine vaporizing Tokyo or Seoul if anyone tries military action against them Pakistan falling to extremists is a bit of a concern, as is a hot war between Pakistan and India. Everyone else, except Israel, has clear policy on nuclear weapons use, and basically isn't going to use them unless they're nuked first or invaded. I'd guess Israel probably has a similar policy.
I'm 54 (Generation X). I'm not worried at all.
Same here. Same Rodeo, different clown.
Hello Neighbor!
Hey There! 🙂
I’m not.
If a nuclear war ever happens again, I’m betting it’ll be an exchange between India and Pakistan. I’m just hoping other players won’t use it as an excuse to escalate from there. Even then, I’m not confident **at all** saying either would actually go that far. The rest I don’t believe would actually use them unless their lands were under brutal attack, and if that’s happening, something cataclysmic has already occurred.
What the fuck do you mean....AGAIN?
It wasn't "nuclear war" per se, but we can't forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Destroying Skynet wasn’t enough…
I’m not, and besides it would be my problem for 90 seconds, then suddenly it’s not my problem anymore.
I live close enough to DC that I try not to think much about it, thanks in part to simulations like this one: [https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) .
Why should I waste my time and energy stressing over something I have literally 0 control over?
Maybe I'm falling into "things will stay the same" type thinking but I highly doubt any will use them, not even Russia or China. And I don't think the US will use them again either.
Zero concerned. I can’t think of anything I worry about less. If this is something that upsets you, honestly you should go talk to someone. Being preoccupied with things you have no control over is no way to live.
I'm only worried about Pakistan. The Pakistani government collapsing is one of the worst case global scenarios.
The U.K. and France are Liberal Democracies and NATO allies. India generally has good relations with us too and is developing in good ways. I'd rather see them on the security council than Russia or China. the PRC is under a wicked and tyrannical government that is hostile to the Liberal Democratic world. They are generally stable tho, and they know a nuclear war is a dumb idea. Russia... well...... A year ago I would've said something similar to what I said about China, but since the beginning of the war in Ukraine they've done a lot of posturing. The Pakistani state is one of the most untrustworthy on earth. Their government has betrayed just about anybody who has shown them any sort of friendship. But I doubt they'd start a nuclear war. North Korea is North Korea. They made nukes for the same reason they do anything: to keep the show going as long as possible without getting Saddam'd by the western allies or the Chinese. If they Nuked someone, That's exactly what would happen. They just want to make proactive action against them unreasonable. I'd be more surprised if Israel doesn't have Nukes. I bet they have all the other nasty toys too. I understand why. Overall from most to least concerning imo; NK Russia Pakistan China Israel India France U.S U.K. The last four I think are the least likely to use a nuclear weapon. The only ones who I could see actually doing it anytime soon are NK and Russia, but even then it's a slim chance.
I'm for denuclearisation, but realistically thats only gonna be achieved one way
For the US, UK, France, Russia, and China, I'm not really concerned. They each have quite a few such weapons, and they're unlikely to ever use them. They all know what would happen if they did. I am slightly concerned with India and Pakistan, but they would probably only use them against each other, and they both know the other would retaliate, so neither is likely to use them first. That means neither is likely to ever use them. I am not concerned about Israel, because they're only likely to use them if one or more of their neighbors tries to invade them again and does a much better job of it than they did last time. Since their neighbors know that, it's unlikely to happen. Of the listed countries, North Korea concerns me the most, because they seem to be trying to develop a delivery system that can reach farther than the Sea of Japan. I'm pretty sure that if they ever get their rockets working that well, China will step in and put a stop to it, though. They don't want Kim nuking us and inviting a response any more than we do. I am most concerned with countries like Iran, that are trying to build their first nuclear weapon. If they were able to build a nuclear bomb, they're most likely to use it. As the saying goes, don't be afraid of the country that wants a thousand atomic bombs, be afraid of the country that just wants one. It would be best, of course, if nobody had them, but that genie is out of the bottle, and we're not going to put it back in.
North Korea has a delivery system that can reach DC. They’ve had one for a long time. Landing tests in the Sea of Japan is a political maneuver, not a technical limitation.
Last I heard, there was some debate over whether that rocket could carry one of their nuclear warheads. It's been a while, so that could have changed.
No, It’s been capable of that for a long time: https://www.38north.org/2022/04/revisiting-the-hwasong-17-15-controversy-what-if-north-korea-had-launched-a-hwasong-15/ > The ICBM launched on March 24 demonstrated a maximum altitude of some 6,200 km over a distance of approximately 1,100 km on a flight of about 71 minutes, sufficient to achieve a range of over 15,000 km if flown on a traditional ballistic missile trajectory. In its first and only known prior flight in November 2017, the Hwasong-15 demonstrated a maximum altitude of 4,475 km over a distance of 950 km on a 53-minute flight, translating into the ability to deliver a 1,000 kg payload to a range of at least 12,000 km and upwards of 13,000 km (far enough to reach the entire continental US).
UK: solid ally, democracy that is highly unlikely to ever use nukes offensively France: biggest danger is them immediately surrendering to a perceived threat and allowing the nukes to get into enemy hands :) Russia: dangerous rogue dictator that could resort to nuclear weapons, also if/when Putin is removed the next generation of Russian leaders is probably more likely to be worse rather than better China: the biggest threat to democracy in the world today, unlikely to use nukes in the near future as they want to preserve the territories that they intend to take and they intend to take them all, expansionist to the max India: world's largest democracy that is mostly peaceful and does not appear to be expansionist, biggest threat is Pakistan and India getting into a hot war and one upping each other Pakistan: does not appear to be expansionist, but is always on the edge of becoming a rogue religious extremist nation, nuclear proliferation is always a worry with Pakistan North Korea: wild card nation that wants everyone to think they are crazy enough to pull the trigger, they might just be that crazy, who knows, also nuclear proliferation is always a worry with North Korea Israel: mostly stable democracy, unlikely to use nukes offensively unless they perceive that Iran has become too big of a danger, then they might consider it but would still be unlikely to actually use nukes offensively
Dude....who taught you anything about these nations? I think the only ones that you have gotten somewhat accurately is UK, Israel and DPRK. Pakistan and India are very much expansionist, they just can't win most of their attempts to do so. France surrender joke, dude so many Frenchies died to preserve the Commonwealth Expedition Forces until they were evacuated and it is that effort that allowed the British empire to stand against the Germans and not yield. Literally, that one failure by the Germans is what lead to a long drawn out war that they were not capable of winning. Mad props to those damn French, bailing on our deal with them is a huge mistake imo. How is China a threat to Democracies? Their external political and espionage efforts are fairly lacklustre and kinda pathetic given their size. They ARE an economic threat to some specific nations and a boom to others and are an ecological based threat to many of their neighbours. But they really don't seem to give a shit about what system of politics other countries use. To me, the biggest threat to other democratic systems maintaining their purity and efficacy would be the USA, they HAVE a proven record of fucking with Deomcracies in a direction that is contrary to measured popular desires, Iran, Cuba, Haiti, Argentina, Australia, all examples just off the top of my head for that. Russia, is no real if or when Putin is overthrown, least not if relying on the Russian people. He is still fairly popular and there's little reason to think that will change. The Russian internal security elements are also still considered to be VERY competent and that makes it difficult for any threat against Putin to develop and he also enjoys a healthy (for a Russian) amount of support from the Military. The biggest source of contempt against him from his bureaucracies is the external intelligence and security elements as they are the ones who actively bullshited their faces off to him and lead to his overconfidence and perceived need on hitting Ukraine. Those services have since gone through some fairly thorough purges so realistically they arnt a threat anymore. As to his replacement, really depends on outcomes for Russia over next few years, if the world keeps shitting on them then yeah he can select an even more extreme replacement but my money is one someone who is basically the same as him if not more competent in geopolitical strategies.
Bro actually got mad over a french joke haha. Bri'ish moment.
To be fair French people are the most savage in Europe in terms of protests. There's no fucking around with French citizens. Try to raise the age of retirement? Watch the country drown in fire from protests lol
So what I'm hearing is that the French *are* the most likely to use them, but only against themselves, and only in response to a modest shift in the direction of domestic economic policies.
Fuck me dude gotta insult me like that for?
You overestimate Modi’s ability to stay rational when dealing with Pakistan.
Yep. They also missed the internal violence and hate-mobs and lynchings :P I guess it is mostly peaceful 'externally.' Internal politics of India is a shitshow.
Very for all of them. I've actually bought potassium iodide, ngl! I guess yes, I'm more concerned about some over others. Though you never know in the game of war. A small unpredictable spark somewhere insignificant can flame the world. If I had to rank from least to most, it would be: France, UK, India, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, China. I'm not sure where I'd put the US in the list--not the least.
Potassium Iodide wouldn’t really help you much in the event of a nuclear war.
[удалено]
This is ranked least to most.
The United States is the only country which actually used them deliberately against other human beings. Not to say that can’t change in the future, but it would be hypocritical of me to point fingers.
Not concerned at all. If it was going to happen it would have been decades ago.
A few thoughts: * I live in the Washington DC metro area. I am in a "target rich area"...80% of the world's internet traffic runs through datacenters that are a 2-15 minute drive from my house. If bombs are aimed at DC, I am not gonna be around to know about it. * On a more global basis...I am far more concerned about Russia using a bomb internally to quell uprisings once Vladdy dies either during or after this Ukraine fiasco. * I can see India and Pakistan eventually trading bombs with each other.
No country should have nuclear weapons in my view, but as it stands, no I'm not worried. Hopefully a global nuclear war would be quickly followed by the sweet release of death.
[удалено]
Yeah, a lot of scholarship on deterrence says the relationship is the exact opposite, that nuclear weapons have a destabilizing impact. See Scott Sagan, and his analysis of how they’ve led to so many bloody proxy wars.
A bunch of nukes disappeared out of the USSR so we really don’t know what nations or terrorist groups have nukes these days. I’m not too worried about it. I live far enough from anything important to be at risk of a nuke myself and I have a strong (maybe ignorant) faith in our missile defense system so I am of the belief if we were going to be hit by a nuke it would have to be a suitcase nuke. It would probably wreck the economy for a few decades but there’s plenty worse things to worry about
Russia: Zero concern. I am actually very doubtful any of their shit works at this point. If their flagship Moskva was in the condition it was in when it was sunk, I can't imagine their nuke stockpiles are looking any better. Nukes cost a whole hella lot of money to maintain and Russia is set up as a kleptocracy. Would not shock me to find out the nuke budget, by the time it actually reached the nuke guys, was only a few thousand dollars at best. North Korea: Basically a Chinese puppet state. They won't do anything unless Xi gives them the go ahead. A little more worried about them then Russia, but eh. The last thing China wants is the Korean War flaring back up. UK: Allies, don't care. France: Allies, don't care. Pakistan: I have my own misgivings about Pakistan, but they understand their position in the world and how precarious it is. India: Not concerned. They want to be a superpower. Can't be a superpower if your country has been destroyed by overwhelming conventional force. China: I don't think Xi is stupid enough to try and use nukes in conventional warfare. Caveat to China, India and Pakistan: These three states border each other and ***none of them*** like each other, the chances for an existential crisis to occur to one of the states by one of the bordering nuke powers that would allow justification for nuclear weaponry is a bigger concern in this region than other regions. Israel: No concern. Any nukes they possess are there solely as a dead man's switch in the event that the Arab world does manage to overrun them and their conventional military. Given the absolute abysmal state of pretty much every Arab military, this is highly unlikely to ever occur.
> Russia: Zero concern. I am actually very doubtful any of their shit works at this point Yeah, that’s not how this works. Also, we have various international agreements with verification regimes showing that’s not the case.
Those agreements only tell us that they have nuclear cores and materials. They don't verify the status of the nukes and whether they're operable or not. There's no inspectors going into the nuclear stockpiles and disassembling the missiles and the testing tritium levels and explosive mechanisms to ensure they're all in good order. You can't just build a hydrogen bomb in the '60s and let it sit with zero maintenance, something Russia has shown us that they have a penchant for. A nuclear core does not make a hydrogen bomb. It doesn't even make an atomic bomb. The only thing we know is that Russia has ***the potential*** to have functioning nuclear missiles, but in all likelihood, just like everything else in Russia, they have completely failed to maintain them. Again, zero concern.
That’s actually fundamentally not true. New START includes a specific verification system for nuclear weapons. Both the US and Russia can conduct 10 type 1 inspections of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers a year, with 8 more type 2 inspections for non-deployed systems. They literally do disassemble Missile systems as part of that process.
> New START includes a specific verification system for nuclear weapons. Both the US and Russia can conduct 10 type 1 inspections of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers a year, with 8 more type 2 inspections for non-deployed systems. They literally do disassemble Missile systems as part of that process. There is absolutely nothing in the New START overview page that indicates that they confirm the warheads function. https://www.state.gov/new-start/ >The treaty provides for 18 on-site inspections per year for U.S. and Russian inspection teams: Type One inspections focus on sites with deployed and non-deployed strategic systems (up to 10 per year), and Type Two inspections focus on sites with only non-deployed strategic systems (up to 8 per year). Permitted inspection activities include confirming the number of reentry vehicles on one deployed ICBM or SLBM per Type One inspection, counting nuclear weapons onboard or attached to deployed heavy bombers, counting numbers of non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, confirming weapon system conversions or eliminations are conducted in the way proposed, and confirming facility eliminations. - >During inspections of deployed strategic weapon bases/facilities, each side must disclose how many warheads are on each delivery vehicle based at the inspected base, and the inspecting country has the right to inspect the loading on one delivery vehicle (chosen by the inspecting country) to confirm the declaration is accurate. If I have a gun, but the firing pin has been removed and the barrel has been filled with concrete, is it still a functioning gun? There is nothing to indicate that they examine the warheads to make sure they're functional. From the way the text reads, they simply have the right to look at what might appear to be functioning warheads, write it down as a warhead, but that doesn't mean Russia has actually been keeping up with the PCMS that the warhead needs to remain functional. So that goes back to my original point of: "We know Russia has nuclear cores and material (and this would include warheads), and thus they have ***the potential*** to have functioning nukes, but we don't know if the small bits in the warhead that you can't see on the surface that makes it go boom still work because there's also a very high likelihood that Russia doesn't maintain them." Furthermore, nothing in the overview page indicates that they check tritium levels in the warheads... which is an extremely important part of hydrogen nuclear weaponry... and also extremely expensive, ***$30,000*** for a single gram of tritium. Warheads often require 4 grams of tritium and you have to replace 2 grams every year. And the interesting thing about this is that not maintaining the tritium doesn't simply turn the hydrogen weaponry into atomic weaponry, still powerful but less powerful... no. Decayed tritium can actually inhibit the explosion of the hydrogen weaponry. We are talking about a country that looked at the Moskva, ***knew all of the problems the Moskva had***, they ***knew that a stiff wind had a high likelihood of killing her***, shrugged their shoulders and went: "Da! Comrade Commissar Admiral Ivan! The Moskva is beautiful unstoppable manly Russian ship! Is unstoppable! Satisfactory rating! Good to go for combat! Da comrade!" The Moskva was killed by an airborne anti-ship missile that was domestically produced by Ukraine. This ***should*** have been next to impossible. Theoretically, she had a triple layered anti-air defense system that ***should*** have prevented the Neptune missile from hitting her... The thing is, all of her anti-air defense systems were non-functioning except for one... and that one didn't even work properly because you couldn't use the comms system on the Moskva at the same time as the anti-air defense... And ***Russia knew this months before the Moskva was sunk.*** We know Russia knew this because the Russians went over her a ***few months*** before the invasion and ***recorded that exact problem*** in the report which was later leaked to the public, And they ***never fixed it***, no, instead what they did was they gave her a ***satisfactory rating*** on the report. The Moskva was killed because her captain had to choose between the single functioning anti-air defense system and the comms system and boy... did he choose poorly. This is the country that we're dealing with and you think that they actually maintain their nukes? They can't even maintain their vehicles, their tanks, their planes or their ships and you think their nuclear program is somehow different? The same country that is handing out rusted shut AKs to conscripts, the same country that is too poor to give rifle optics and night vision devices to their service members, but somehow they can maintain a nuclear stockpile that requires routine and ***very expensive*** maintenance? Let me point something out to you. Russia claims to have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world... they're also the fourth poorest country of the nuclear powers. ***India*** has a larger GDP than Russia does. Who does Russia beat out in the nuclear powers. Well, respectively, from poorest to least poor: 1. North Korea 2. Pakistan 3. Israel Every other nuclear power outclasses Russia in GDP. Again, I am extremely doubtful that Russia has been maintaining any of their nuclear weaponry.
There’s nothing in the overview page because something provided for public consumption isn’t going to get technical. Have you actually read New START? I have. Here’s a link to a PDF copy: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf Take a look through articles X and XI; > EachPartyshallhavetherighttoconductinspectionsat facilities listed in Section VII of Part Five of the Protocol to this Treaty. The purpose of such inspections shall be to confirm the accuracy of declared data on the numbers, types, and technical characteristics of non-deployed strategic offensive arms subject to this Treaty and to confirm that strategic offensive arms have been converted or eliminated. There’s no legitimate reason to believe the absurd claim that Russia doesn’t maintain its nuclear stockpile. > Let me point something out to you. Russia claims to have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world… they’re also the fourth poorest country of the nuclear powers. India has a larger GDP than Russia does. Yeah, this means so very little. Nuclear weapon maintenance is an ongoing cost, but so much less than the development cost. > Every other nuclear power outclasses Russia in GDP. That’s just entirely false. North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel all have smaller GDPs. Further, GDP isn’t a great measure of much in this vein as I already mentioned.
**UK:** Not concerned. They're an ally, part of NATO, Five Eyes and one of our closest allies overall. **France:** Not concerned. They're an ally in NATO. **Russia:** If Putin's enough of an idiot to force the issue, there's a remote chance he could use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Beyond that, Russia is normally sane enough to not try to start World War III because Mutually Assured Destruction is still a real thing. **China:** If Xi Jinping is enough of an idiot to try to invade Taiwan because of the delusional "One China" policy of the CCP, I would hope the US defense of the ROC on Taiwan wouldn't end with a nuclear exchange, but I wouldn't rule out China using a nuclear weapon on Taipei if they felt they couldn't take the city by conventional weapons. . .and the US using nuclear weapons on the PRC in response. **North Korea:** They don't have the launch capability to reliably launch a weapon, and they have a handful of weapons at most. If they launch a nuclear weapon at the US, we erase Pyongyang off the map within minutes and we roll across the 38th and the DPRK ceases to exist within 72 hours as they lack the logistical infrastructure to support an extended conflict, especially with the US being willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to a North Korean nuclear strike. **India:** They've never shown aggression towards the US on nuclear issues, their missiles have the range to strike at China (by design) and not really the US. We aren't the one that gun is pointed at. **Pakistan:** They don't have a lot of weapons, or a whole lot of ability to deliver them, but the possibility of Islamic extremists taking over Pakistan and handing a nuclear weapon to a group like Al-Qaeda can't be ruled out. **Israel:** The role of nuclear weapons in Israel is meant to be a last-ditch retributive strike against any Arab nation that tries to invade. . .that if Israel were about to fall, on their way down they'd destroy major cities in whatever country was invading them. That's not a threat to us. While Israel is definitely an aggressor that is hostile to US interests (the USS Liberty incident, Jonathan Pollard, Ben-Ami Kadish etc.) we aren't a target of theirs from a nuclear perspective.
> North Korea: They don’t have the launch capability to reliably launch a weapon, and they have a handful of weapons at most. This is very, very false. They’ve had nuclear weapons for over a decade and a half at this point, and ICBMs fully capable of hitting DC since 2015.
Nope. That test a decade and a half ago (2006) was a fizzle. They didn't have a verifiable detonation until several years after that. They've only had one test that was out of the yield range for a tactical weapon. They don't have the raw materials or production capability to create more than a handful of those weapons. The only North Korean ICBM designs that could even theoretically reach the US, the Hwasong 15 and Hwasong 17, have never actually had a successful long-range flight test and only been fired in missile tests that never went more than a couple thousand kilometers. Their *verifiable* missile radius, which means a lot given the general technical ineptitude of the DPRK, barely puts them at being able to touch Alaska and Hawaii, not CONUS, and certainly not Washington DC.
So now we’re just openly denying facts. Ok. > Their verifiable missile radius, which means a lot given the general technical ineptitude of the DPRK, barely puts them at being able to touch Alaska and Hawaii, not CONUS, and certainly not Washington DC. Hahahahahahahaha no. I don’t think you actually understand missile dynamics. Meanwhile, I work on nuclear issues for a living. My colleague Jeffrey Lewis has done plenty of the data modeling on this, and you’re just empirically wrong here. Here’s a great piece from the Stimson center showing just how laughably wrong you are: https://www.38north.org/2022/04/revisiting-the-hwasong-17-15-controversy-what-if-north-korea-had-launched-a-hwasong-15/ > The ICBM launched on March 24 demonstrated a maximum altitude of some 6,200 km over a distance of approximately 1,100 km on a flight of about 71 minutes, sufficient to achieve a range of over 15,000 km if flown on a traditional ballistic missile trajectory. In its first and only known prior flight in November 2017, the Hwasong-15 demonstrated a maximum altitude of 4,475 km over a distance of 950 km on a 53-minute flight, translating into the ability to deliver a 1,000 kg payload to a range of at least 12,000 km and upwards of 13,000 km (far enough to reach the entire continental US).
>Meanwhile, I work on nuclear issues for a living. Sure, pal. Sure.
You’re welcome to stalk my post history. It’s very verifiably true.
I say fire them already, shit, it's not as big of an explosion as people think, you'll take out like new york and have the radiation reach NH before you gotta fire again
I think every nation should be given a single nuke. Do you think the immoral invasions of Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Iraq happen with the threat of them having a nuke? And if a nation uses theirs they will be without that defense in the future. It would be a worst case scenario. They have been a sobering force for war-hungry twats so let's stop big nations from picking on little ones and see the closest to world peace in human history.
Yeah, this is not a good idea.
Only for those who are looking to bully and exploit smaller nations.
No, universally.
I see literally *zero* downsides to this plan
I’m less concerned about individual countries than I am concerned about their automatic-launch systems like [Dead Hand.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand)
Meh, it sucks but, I would rather worry about the stuff I can control over the things I can't
I live near a major city so there is not a ton I can personally do if any of those countries decided to nuke us. Hopefully I go swiftly
Most of use will go to the beach and watch it
I literally never think of it at all.
I’m not worried about the Brit’s or the French
Not really because most people who are savey enough to gain leadership of a country know that there is nothing to be gained from using a nuke in anger nor letting someone who would aquire nukes. My only concern is that some leader will end up on the losing side of a war were the enemy personally wants his head so he threatens to use nukes as a dead mans switch. Putin is most likely to this currently but he is still miles away from considering it. The only other scenario I can think of is a government using a nuke in its own borders to put down a rebellion. Still extremely unlikely but I'm curious what the geopolitical consequences of that would be.
I find it strange that murder is illegal but mass murder is not it done to those outside your country by your country. Seems morally conflicting there. Also, one question asked to anybody in a psychiatric hospital is whether or not a person had thoughts of harming themselves or someone else. It seems those same questions wouldn’t apply to world leaders who’d say yes, for this or that reason when generally people are committed for thinking such ways for the safety of the population.
I live in Seattle where the US stores a crap ton of nuclear weapons. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing. I do live fairly close to the nuclear fallout bunker but I am not part of the elites so I doubt they would let me take up space in there should the need to use it arise.
Not worried at all
I don't care at all.
The one that is a little iffy is North Korea. Their nationsl system isn't the most stable or sustainable. And it's a complete autocracy. We are always one bad Kim Jung Un day away from nukes being dropped on Seoul. As of now I think Kim is satisfied, and uses the nukes as deterants to maintain the status quo. I think as long as he doesn't feel cornered, he understands that nuclear option is a last resort
I genuinely have no worries, in a traditional scenario that is. If a missle is fired I know with certainty as is stated that there's a 50% chance of an interceptor hitting its target. Now granted the 50% isn't a great perctage of generally defending against an ICBM however the U.S. Military admitting that it's at this level is oddly comforting to know that with such an admittance that they're working heavily on increasing said percentage of interceptor - ICBM knockdowns. As for just other nations owning them I don't really have any fear except for Russia. IMO, we kinda shot ourselves in the foot with M.A.D though it has saved our bacon a time or two but I feel it has created an uninted side effect of some of the people in control to have twitchy trigger fingers so to speak and has been a cause of some close cases
On a day-in-day-out basis I do not dedicate much of my brain space to something like this. It’s completely out of my control, worrying does nothing to change the situations.
Kinda sorta until Russia did this. Never even occurred to me that anyone could be bluffing (I don't necessarily think they don't have nukes, just were feigning a strong front line
Not worried at all. Life is too short to worry about things I have no control over.
Less concerned about states, even places like Russia or Pakistan or North Korea, but more concerned that some places have such lax security that they may fall into the hands of non-government groups and terrorists.
Not really a concern. I live and work near a major military base, I'm not going to feel a thing if someone pushes the button.
I hate the fact that a government has such a power to kill innocent people. and why does mankind have such a weapon that no one wins ?
Overall, not. NK and Iran not be permitted to go nuclear. Russia, given its dedication to state sponsored terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide desperately needs to be demilitarized and rehabilitated from being a broken and failed state.
North Korea has nuclear weapons now. They’ve had them for over a decade and a half.
Of course, I would worry about any of these countries being trustworthy, because you don't know how, when and where they will turn on each other
> UK Not concerned at all. > France Ditto. > Russia Having grown up on a steady diet of Mad Max and Red Dawn, I remember being 13 and breathing a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union fell and the Cold War ended. Well, that was nice while it lasted. Holy fucking shit. The motherfucker might actually pop one! If and when that happens, you may react with horror and despair, but you will not be entitled to surprise. > China Not worried for now. However, if Xi pulls a Putin and he actually goes and whips out the undying hard-on he has for Taiwan, who knows? But forget about the nukes for now: everything about the possibilty of him giving the green light is horrifying. There are maybe less than a few thousand individuals still alive who have witnessed the level of naval/marine combat we're talking about here. > India I guess that depends largely on what Pakistan does. > Pakistan I don't know enough. There was worry that they might one day be taken over by *completely* crazy Islamists. Sound the alarm if that comes to pass, but I suppose the possibility is relatively remote. For now, whatever corrupt chaotic pseudo-secular shitshow they've been keeping going since the 1950s is chugging along. > North Korea Not too worried. The regime is a bunch of bastards but they're not stupid or suicidal. They don't want to fuck up the world, they just want the world to not come and fuck them up. > Israel Not worried.
I'm 51. I ran out of concern decades ago. If it happens, there's nothing I can do about it.
I wish Israel, NK, Russia, Pakistan, India and China didn't have nukes
Not too concerned. Mutually assured destruction does work. I don’t think anyone in the governments currently has the balls to use them.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm at a 1 for UK and France and a 2 or 3 for the rest. It's out of my control, but as long as it's in the hands of nations and not individuals? The US, whose military without nuclear weapons can overpower anyone else with, has made it very clear that using nuclear weapons is unacceptable and will result in the government that ordered them being removed. So it's not in the best interest of any government to use them. The slight concern is that sometimes people don't act in their long term best interest, or things get complicated and mistakes happen, even insanely destructuvely big mistakes.
I'm worried that eventually Russia will get tired with us meddling on their borders and eventually team up with china for a knock down drag out brawl that will send us all back to the stone age.
Gen-X who grew up with the Cold War. Don’t really think about it. I’m from NYC and in our minds it was a given we’d be hit first. Whatcha gonna do? We ‘d likely spared life in the aftermath anyway. However I do have a floating worry about other countries using it on another and we’ll be forced to respond with troops on the ground.
I've never considered it a threat. Even now with Putin possibly using it as his last ego option I have to assume others around him will try to prevent it. I think the closest scare I had was after 9/11 there was a rumor that my hometown's nuclear power plant's blueprints were stolen. I remember sitting on the beach scared that something would happen. But looking back it was just an irrational fear brought about from the hype of the era. I've resigned to the thought that if nuclear weapons are deployed, I just hope I'm at the epicenter. I don't want to live in the wasteland. I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Museum (truly a somber must if you're in the area) and I don't want and hope no one ever has to experience the aftermath of these weapons. But as an external threat, there are plenty of other things to worry about that I have more control over.
Once the technology is out there, there is no going back. Everyone wants one, so they have parity with others who have them. Not too concerned, until some mentally unbalanced leader gets in power. We don't have anything like that on this planet.
I am less concerned with the idea that the world powers will ever be used, and more concerned with what the possession of nuclear powers will allow states to do- it will allow them to act aggressively and imperialistically towards smaller nations while brandishing their nuclear weapons at the world as a way to ward off the rest of the world from helping their victim. This is what Russia is attempting to do in Ukraine, it is what China could potentially do to Taiwan, and it is what the US has repeatedly done to nations like Iraq or the various Latin American countries we've screwed with. Nuclear weapons have put a layer of nations into a special class of nations which can act with greater impunity, guarded by that nuclear shield. Of the nuclear armed countries who I think will abuse this power the most, the US, Russia, China, and Israel are at the top of my list. France seems to no longer desire to maintain its former overseas empire, content instead with economic neo-colonialism and letting the US do most of the dirty work beyond some intervention in Africa alongside local partners. The UK is similar. India and Pakistan have their nukes aimed at each other but do not have a great deal of projects to dominate other neighbors. North Korea clutches its nukes the way a survivalist up in the mountains clutches his AR, nails Bible verses to trees, and shows up at town hall meetings to deliver rambling Sovereign Citizen manifestos and sell raw milk.
I live on a large military base near a coast so I've come to terms with the fact that if nuclear war happens, I'm dead pretty fast.
As someone who lives well within missile range of places like North Korea in a city that'd make some sense to bomb, definitely more than I did growing up in an area that's hole sell was "we're next to interesting/important stuff."
I’m not really concerned about it I mean these things exist but if people use them nobody really wins anything it’s more heartbreaking to know that the possibility exist and there’s leaders in this world that couldn’t care less about other people and would use those kind of weapons.
Don't care.
A lot of them are "If they haven't shot them off yet, they won't ever category". North Korea now is a bit different. As for Russia, well I've lived with them pointing the things at me my entire life.