Robert said:
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
I have to say I see no reason why any of the countries you mention would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons.
And history shows only one country has ever used them to attack.
From that, perhaps you can see why lots of other countries may feel they need them; to protect themselves from what they can more validly claim is a "rogue" nuclear power - the USA.
You bring up an interesting perspective Robert. Frankly I am not sure I can your question, at least not to your satisfaction. I would love to be able to tell you that my thoughts and perspectives in this situation are based on my job and the information that I am exposed to while performing that job (and my opinions are heavily influenced by my work) but unfortunately I cannot show you that information. I do believe that data is both real and correct but that is my opinion.
With regards to any country being stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, I still hold that the two most dangerous countries in this case are North Korea and Iran. I am reminded of Reagan's old phrase, "Trust but verify, verify and trust". Per treaty, both the US and the Russians do that. Likewise we have the IAEC (?) out of the UN which does have (at least some) visibility into both countries as well as the other older nuclear powers (with the possible exception of Isreal). Curiously, the aforementioned Iran and North Korea have both elected to not cooperate with IAEC so suspicion is immediately there, regardless of what either country claims the actual intentions are. I would also remind you that both countries have publicly declared their intent to use nuclear weapons (apparently as a first response) if "attacked" (by the US or others is unclear in all cases). North Korea does have the delivery systems for an IRBM / ICBM and while their last detonation was far lower in yield than expected, it did produce the appropriate signatures on sensors so they do appear to have the capability and intent to use them be it as a political bargaining chip, political bullying of their neighbor to the south or otherwise. With respect to Iran, they currently appear to lack proof of a functional warhead but since we cannot see their enrichment facilities, we cannot determine to what grade they are enriching fissionable material (or in what quantity). Their long range delivery capability is being worked (as evolutions of shorter range vehicles) so that is a question of when, not if. Politically, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is certainly controversial, both nationally and internationally. His wikipedia entry lists enough items of interest to make anyone take notice.
Everything I have listed above is public information. There is a lot more available if your work gives you access to it. Take from it what you will but I certainly have no problems making the accusations that I have and I sleep very well at night.
With regards to only one country having used nuclear weapons in offense, I do not disagree. The US was the first and thankfully the only country to use them. Given the scenarios presented by the military to President Truman for the pending invasion of Japan, I agree that he had no choice but to use the two devices. To have risked the planned ocean invasion could have produced far higher combined casualties, both allied and Japanese (since that invasion never happened, we can never know for sure). The horror of what the bombs did explains why we have never used them again (thankfully) and I believe why the mature nuclear nations have never used theirs. Based on what we know (and think we know) about North Korea and Iran, I'm not sure they share the understanding of what would happen should nuclear weapons be used.
Again, take from this what you will. Thanks for the discussion.
Regards,
Ltstanfo
