Now every country will want Nukes as they see US only attacking countries witout Nukes , has Trump just caused a nuclear race?

[888theGreat]

If Iran had Nukes the US would not dared attack them. They know it and everyone else knows it. Trump has caused a new nuclear arms race.

Yep , every country will want Nukes

No, even though US has never invaded or attacked a Nuclear power.

[msc545]

I think nuclear weapons are a fairly large financial investment that most countries would choose not to make, particularly if they don't think they have anything that the US wants. For those countries that do have resources or other things that the US wants, nuclear weapons are probably a good investment because they seem to be the only thing that prevents an invasion by the US. So far, that is.

[msc545]

Thanks For the MHO

[robocop666]

this is what the Ukraine says about giving up nukes in 1991

[888theGreat]

right if Ukraine still had Nukes from USSR , Russia would never had invaded

[OneViewpoint]

Having nukes isn't enough. You also need delivery systems. That means aircraft, ballistic missiles, ships, or submarines. Most countries don't have the resources to support a nuclear armed military. And a lot of them don't want the headaches of being a small country with nukes. I. E. the scrutiny from the US, China, and Russia. Pakistan and North Korea are exceptions to that rule.

A bigger problem for the world is the 4,000 tactical nukes in Russia under dubious security. Those are easy to transport and might fetch a handsome price if some enterprising Russian general wanted to retire to an island somewhere warm.

[msc545]

Nuclear weapons are rather small these days. You could put one into a delivery truck and drive it to wherever you needed it, and detonate it.

[OneViewpoint]

@msc545 ,

Those are the tactical nukes I mentioned. They’ve been small since the 1980’s. Low yield but still enough to wreak devastation on a target.

Strategic nukes are not small.

[msc545]

Strategic ones aren't small. Kind of wonder if the size of a nuclear weapon is correlated with its yield, such that bigger weapons (physically bigger weapons) yield more destruction. Do you happen to know the answer to this?

[msc545]

Okay, I had to ask the AI because I was too curious to wait for your answer. The AI said: there is some correlation between the yield of a nuclear weapon and its physical size, but it is not a strict or reliable relationship. Modern nuclear weapons show that very large yields can come from surprisingly small devices, depending on the design - like: "W88

Diameter: ~55 cm

Weight: ~360 kg

Yield: ~475 kilotons

That is over 30 times the Hiroshima bomb in a package small enough to fit inside a missile reentry vehicle.

[OneViewpoint]

@msc545 ,

Like I said. Small. Kilotons. As opposed to 1-5 megaton strategic devices. But that's still big enough to put on a show. And they can be smaller. Those are the devices people should worry about. Stuff that can be fired by artillery. And carried in the trunk of a car. They range from 1 -50 kilotons. Russia has about 4,000 of them. What if they gifted one to a pissed off group of religious freaks.

[msc545]

I can see where that might present a pretty serious problem very quickly.

[Hagar88]

If Iran had Nukes theyd launch them, thats why they need stopped. You notice all the arab countries are siding with the US and Israel not Iran? They know what Iran has been doing in the middle east this ladt 20 years.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Perhaps. I'm almost pining for the days of America's and The Soviet Union's Mutually Assured Destruction" ("MAD") deterrent to offensive nuclear strikes when they were the only nuclear nations. Now any p***ant nation or worse, lone wolf bad actor can threaten the planet's annihilation, which is REALLY, well, MAD !!!

[Chazmatazz269]

They all wanted nukes anyway. That’s the whole reason that the accords were drawn up. Do you ever think?
Call your parents and shame them for failing you. You’re completely childish the way you lead with your feelings on every conceivable issue.

[Hagar88]

Not necessarily. Being a nuclear power is expensive but the technology is 80 years old, virtually any country could do it if they choose to.

[Chazmatazz269]

I don’t understand your point. Neither the question nor my response are about actually developing nuclear weapons. It’s about countries wanting them. Furthermore, i addressed the issue of accessibility by referring to the nuclear accords. The non-proliferation agreement is a priority for the UN. They took action when it was discovered that Iran was attempting to develop nuclear weapons.
Lastly, you’re wrong. The only expensive things about having nukes is the safe containment of radioactive materials and ICBM technology. Dirty bombs are easy to make and the materials are easy to acquire. This is especially true when you have a kamikaze caste that is willing to sacrifice themselves for their god and/or mission. Now you don’t even need safe handling protocols.
Fortunately, it’s also fairly easy to detect uncontained refined radioactive materials. So as long as we understand which people and organizations are willing and able to resort to dirty bombs, then we should be able to stay on top of it. But “should” is kind of a dirty word in terms of national security.

[Hagar88]

Don't worry bout it.

[Sevenpointfive]

if a country wanted a nuke they'd get one. just like israel stole one from us.

[exitseven]

no. what happened to Iran will serve ss a cautionary tale.

[888theGreat]

Doesn't work that way. Didn't stop North Korea

[exitseven]

I bet arter this little rocket man will think a third time before nuking anyone

[Anonymous]

Are you hoping?

[888theGreat]

@msc545 The US is totally out of control , again I have not seen anything like it since 1930's Germany. We know how that ended.

[Opinion Owner]

Would a nuclear attack on US soil make you two happy? What a million innocent people died. Wouldn't that be the best thing that ever happened to you? You could blame trump!