What are the actual odds of a another country using Nukes again?

[Deleted member 19498]

There's an HD version of Threads now? The original was disturbing enough!

Click to shrink...

Who the hell would want to see that kitten burning again in HD !!!!!! (yeah Threads pulls no punches).

As for the topic as others have said I think it is unlikely the major superpowers will do anything stupid with nukes even with President Dumbass of US and President in denial of Russia in charge. India and Pakistan possibly the hatred there knows no boundary. But I think the odds are pretty grim that a terrorist organisation will get their hands on a device and fuck shit up that way.

 

[dyst]

Is that what the other posters in this thread are doing? I think most of them have rationales. Yours is literally just, "thing happened in the past ergo it will happen in the future." Which simply isn't a good argument. It's the laziest sort of induction.

Click to shrink...

This entire thing is guesswork. Literally everyone is taking a guess with absolutely no verifiable rhyme or reason and certainly no proof.

Pakistan? Why? Because they are scary brown people? Like seriously its laughable.

Russia? Why? Because they are crazy and want world domination?

Meanwhile an agressive nation who is in a constant state of war, with a leader who has already alluded to using nukes and has the temperament of a baby is a strench?

That's why I'm laughing my ass off. It's not like I suggested "Bahamas". I suggested a legitimate nation who had used it, makes threats to use it and is actually willing to kill people in war.

 

[Masoyama]

100%
Absolutely no doubt

 

[Galkinator]

The moment a country laucnhes a nuke it will trigger a nuclear war and the world will be gone.
I'd like to believe no country wants that.

 

[low-G]

Eventually somebody's going to use one for recreation if not warfare.

 

[Cocaloch]

This entire thing is guesswork. Literally everyone is taking a guess with absolutely no verifiable rhyme or reason and certainly no proof.

Click to shrink...

I'm aware there's no proof. Doesn't mean there aren't better and worse rational arguments.

Pakistan? Why? Because they are scary brown people? Like seriously its laughable.

Click to shrink...

That's obviously not the only thing going on because people have focused on it above India.

Russia? Why? Because they are crazy and want world domination?

Click to shrink...

Did anyone in this thread say Russia?

Meanwhile an agressive nation who is in a constant state of war, with a leader who has already alluded to using nukes and has the temperament of a baby is a strench?

That's why I'm laughing my ass off. It's not like I suggested "Bahamas". I suggested a legitimate nation who had used it, makes threats to use it and is actually willing to kill people in war.

Click to shrink...

It's not about your choice. It's about the simplest possible historical induction you used to justify it. That the US used a nuke before is no better an argument to suggest that America is the most likely state to use them again than suggesting Japan is the most likely state to have them used upon it because that's the only place that has been nuked. You're now attempting slightly to add to that, by adding incredibly broad stroke observations to it, but you're not offering a take informed by much other than edge.

America is the hegemon, it benefits more than all other nations from general stability. That alone makes it pretty unlikely to nuke anyone.

It was a lazy post, that even you must realize wasn't great because you're trying to add to it now.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Most of you are wrong IMO

The biggest risk is an accidental launch or explosion. This could have disastrous consequences, because the other side may think it's an attack.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

My bigger fear is the creation of a black hole in Switzerland

 

[dyst]

It was a lazy post, that even you must realize wasn't great because you're trying to add to it now.

Click to shrink...

Because I added to my post, it means I realize my original post was lazy? So, you want me to just copy and paste the same post over and over again as a means to "show conviction"? That's not how it works.

Even with that said, I haven't changed my opinion much at all. Pointing to history was just one part of the argument. The other part is that America is in a constant state of war (Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc) which is a damn good preamble for using nuclear weapons.

 

[ThreePi]

A weapon on the level of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? I doubt that'll happen again. Nuclear weapons is such a broad term now. Modern nuclear weapons can be set to different yields from 100s of kilotons to less than 1 (Little Boy and Fat Man were 15 and 21, respectively). I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a low-yield nuclear bomb gets used in the future.

 

[Grain Silo]

It's difficult to say because nukes have thrown us head-first into an unprecedented age. In the thousands of years humans have lived, we're only 70 odd years out from developing the capability to wipe out civilization in a matter of hours. Having been born decades after it happened, I can only imagine witnessing the world change overnight. J. Robert Oppenheimer's dead facial expression in this video from recounting the first atomic bomb detonation in the Manhattan Project can give me an idea of what that's like.



My fear is that, as generations move farther and farther away from the people who witnessed, survived, or heard about Hiroshima and the frequent nuclear tests afterward, we grow ignorant about their power.

 

[Kthulhu]

I think a terrorist getting a nuke and using it is far more likely than a country.

 

[Kay]

Murphy's law basically makes it inevitable

 

[Vilam]

I think it's pretty much inevitable that a nuke gets used again someday. Too many rogue states continuing to gain access to them, and there's no real way to stop them from doing so. Let's say you trust the checks and balances in place for those who currently have nukes. That won't remain true for an indefinite amount of time into the future.