If Iran or Korea was to lauch a nuclear weapon…..?
Both of these countries keep threatening to use their nukes.
Let us do a “perhaps” scenario here folks?
Let us say that Iran nukes Usrael who then nukes Iran, and the entire Middle East is now radioactive, people die, people die later, people get sick and die much later, and the oil is worthless. Let’s say that Korea nuker South Korea and Japan, then South Korea nukes North Korea, again, people die, people will die, people sick will die, area left radioactive.
OKay, this pelase remember is just a “perhaps” scenario okay, don’t get so uptight now…..
The US, Europe, China, Russia, Australia and Canada are now the biggies. We will of course always have the problems in South America, Mexico and Latin America and Africa, but hey, now the world monetary fund can spend money fixing them huh?
Okay, nukes, radiation, Japan nuclear war scenaria once again repeated, would the world be better of afterwards?
Serious responses now, let’s not play mind games, no childish responses, this is serious folks. North Koran needs a war so the people have something to live for, they go to battle, millions get killed, food supply the growths and many left get something to eat out of it. Iran just wants to wipe out Israel before someone else doe like the PLO. Everyone is mad as can be, so let them blow each other up. The food crisis in India will be opver wants the Tailban is nuked by Pakistan after the try using the Afghanastan nukes against them. Once that starts, the cows in India get smokes, now plenty of beef for everyone.
What a plan, the musleums with their nuew flag are moving all over the r=world and soon mouques will outnumber churches (just ask the Vatigan). In 100 years myslems will be the majority and run the world, so, where are we going in this new direction. What is gonna be left of this placet after all is said and done> Obahma has now wiped out the retirements for all americans counting in soricurity an d welfare, so the US needs to start or get on someone siide at the beginning.
All in all, I believe that this is the way we are going, bu remember, the US Attorney Gereranl did state He would not go after thise in Califitnia gowing marijuana for medicin al puroises only, so my person plans, grop py]ot, test my own pot, have free cops guarfing and oritetin my pot, Havi ng weejlu pop burning partyies so othe cn help us test ut firth. We wilklm ensure ouir marijuana farm is guarded by the bes sikdier iof FIrthyne and retired frim milkity services we cab get,,,,,
Gof Bless Br=arracbk Obihna@@@@@@@@@+++++++++++++++++”
Yjhe new orintung start t=during the hikidy nirnuhgm Wat thiiur ciffee hiuyue;;SHalkom all
the US would FSU ! like always
Ok, wasn’t too sure on the last few paragraphs. But, as for your scenario’s on nuclear weapons.
Each one of those scenario’s doesn’t have a high percentage of actually occurring for three reasons: most of those countries conventional forces would be predominantly used. Secondly, they would want the land, but if they destroy the land and containment it – it would be useless to them. Thirdly, most of those countries have signed the No-First Use Agreement (NFU).
But, playing along, Israel would use conventional forces to take out Iran’s nuclear facility (again). But, if nuclear weapons were to be used, Israel would use their weapons first, especially because Iran still hasn’t developed a nuclear weapon.
Again, North Korea wouldn’t use it nuclear weapons. Why? Because if they use them, it would be the end of their regime. And, even though Kim Ill Jung is on his way out – he would not want to see his regime end. Also, North Korea doesn’t need war because there military is far from par – because of the lack of food and basic necessities the KPA is short on numbers. (Its all about saber rattling and North Korea might have taken Saddam as a lesson; otherwise they’ll face the same fate). Lastly, it would be hard pressed for North Korea to successfully launch a nuclear weapon, and if so enter the US Ballistic Missile Defense Shields in place in South Korea and Japan.
Not too sure on what you mean the big countries? With nuclear weapons? No. Biggest markets?
And, Japan nuked? As stated above wouldn’t happen. Plus, there is and has been talk of proliferating in the Diet.
Also, Pakistan wouldn’t nuke the Taliban. The conflict there is between India and Pakistan, which is more of the concern because Pakistan’s influence of military extremist and its capabilities to protect its arsenal. And, India is not apart of the NFU. (And fyi Afghanistan doesn’t have nuclear weapons).
Hopes this help. But, I think your rant might have taken home the cake.
in the strange attempt at words you put above, you mention so many nukes… it would only take about 12 good sized nukes to sterilize all life on earth. human anyway. that is why we don’t set them off. also north korea almost blew themselves up trying to test one…dumbness at it’s finest.
Iran hasn’t got any nukes though has it? There are countries which do have nukes, which probably the US wishes didn’t have nukes (Pakistan). There are also countries which have nukes which the rest of us wish didn’t have them (Israel, North Korea), – but nobody can do anything about it.
That is one of the wonderful things about having nukes.
I don’t recall either of them threatening to use them.
First of all, despite endlessly repeated Israel propaganda, Iran has threatened to do no such thing. In fact Iran has repeatedly called for a nuclear free Middle East. The “threat” is based on one deliberately mistranslated line in one of Ahmadinejad’s speeches.
Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no means to get them to Israel if they did, no reason to attack Israel, and excellent reasons not to attack Israel. Yes, they have threatened widespread retaliation if they are attacked, as would any country threatened with attack. Basically though there is zero chance Iran will attack Israel.
And even if a few nukes did get set off n the region, a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel is not out of the question, it’s not going to turn the “entire Middle East is now radioactive.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still thriving cities last I heard. Atom bombs are just that, big bombs, not region or country destroying devices.
Same thing with North Korea, they have threatened nuclear retaliation if they are attacked, in fact that’s the main reason small countries develop nuclear weapons, so big countries think twice about attacking them.
Basically your “scenarios” are so unrealistic that there’s no point speculating about them. We’re you joking?
It appears that most answers don’t want to stick to the question or scenario. Whether or not a country does or does not have nukes is not part of your scenario which assumes that they do. The main question I saw asked is “would the world be better off afterward?”. I agree that if too many nukes start getting popped, it really won’t matter who shot them or why. The radiation, sickness and desolation would spread throughout the world. Now to the question. The world might be better off without the people on it. On the other hand, assuming that only those countries mentioned were cleared. I don’t think the world or man-kind would be better off. Any way you look at it all countries would feel the effects to some extent and many would suffer through loss of loved ones. As far as conventional wars or conflicts, countries seem to need them to survive. War is what keeps patriotism going and reminds people what the cost of freedom really is.