Which nuclear power is likely to drop the next bomb?

Dubya also ran on a platform of peace. Rep*blican voters have learned nothing.

China. All other states that have nuclear weapons are either too pussy to do anything like this or are bluffing.

>Trump
>wants to ally with Russia

Top kek

>Trump runs on peace
>first thing he does is lifts restrictions on civilian casualties on terrorism activity
>wastes 110 million dollars worth of missiles to kill 9 civilians and 9 soldiers
>wants to re-arm nuclear weapons
PEACE AYY

>tfw Canada also has nukes but calls them American so the public doesn't throw a tantrum

>Billionaire businessman who is president of most powerful country on the planet gets called idiot by poster on a Hawaiian luau forum

Please be counter b8

>wastes 110 million dollars worth of missiles to kill 9 civilians and 9 soldiers

To prevent a dictator from using chemical weapons on civilians you mean? Its cowards like Obama that allow people like Assad to terrorize and kill.

India, Pakistan, or the Saudis (If they get desperate and get Pakistan to fly them over to them).

As opposed to Ronald Reagan who let Sadam get away with it

Isreal

>obama wants to escalate the response to syria
>republicans tell him "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT OR WE'LL IMPEACH YOU"
>Trump does the same thing Obama would've done, except he gets cheered by republicans
Good goy

canda also calls itself canada for this same reason

The United African Empire.

The United States?

USA. When China finally passes them economically, there will be a "crisis" much like the Spanish-American war, in which the US will resort to nuclear weapons in an attempt to retain its status as global hegemon.

you are so full of bollocks

We should conquer Canada.

clearly not, america is not an empire, nor does it lay on the european continent

It's not an impossible scenario though.
Imagine some decades from now,
>China has been the larger economy for a long time now
>starts projecting power in areas of traditional american influence
>US no longer has the material capacity to oppose them through traditional means, so they use the the threat of nuclear attack
>This works at first, but as the material difference between both countries grow, it becomes harder for China to accept that a less powerful country hold a much larger area of influence
>eventually they push too hard and the US starts a nuclear crisis

that's not plausible

that's north korea

you're a joke

How is that north korea? north korea has a larger economy than the US now?

This country isn't going to use nuclear weapons because of the reasons you listed
that's simply retarded, like yourself

You still haven't tried to say why.

It's insulting to even have to explain to you

that's why I think you're retarded

Pakistan most likely. Luckily they'll only glass India and get glassed in return, doing the world a huge favor by ridding it of a few hundred million brown people and two shitty countries. Alternatively Israel will total major Arab population centers.

>mfw people are legitimately against nuclear weapons

That means a lot coming from an illiterate.

It's very rare for an hegemon to acquiesce in its own dethronement, Britain after WW2 arguably went fairly quietly but aside from that I can't think of any who didn't go down fighting. I don't think it's inevitable but when China surpasses the Americans I could well see whoever is POTUS making the call to use nukes. Of the current nuclear powers it certainly seems the most likely, the others are held in check in large part by the threat of America asserting its hegemonic authority, so while India / Pakistan or Iran / Israel may seem like they'd be more eager to use nukes, I can't see anyone daring it until the current "keeper of the peace" breaks the taboo.

Eat a dick then

the same to you retard

That means a lot coming from an invertebrate

You see that doesn't work because I of course have a spine. But you wouldn't know that because, as I have previously established, you are an illiterate.

you haven't got a sense of irony about you, eh slugboy?

Again, if I were a slug I could hardly type, could I? In order to land, an insult has to be at least plausible, if not demonstrably true. An example of the latter is my contention that you are an illiterate, something you continue to display in every post.

Meanwhile US backed rebels use gas and not a fuck is given in washington

And with each post you exhibit no self awareness.

Mere lazy trolling you desperately wish to pass off as intelligence.

Should they care, to? I mean it's bad for publicity but assuming it's kept secret should the US shoulder the blame for the actions of its proxies? Particularly in this case, where it is by no means certain who actually used the gas, and where it was in any event a one-off.

Here, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac

The things that will lead to the USA losing its position as a hegemony are too separate in place and time to be responded to with something as brash as the threat of nuclear strike.

2020; the Phillipines become an ally of China, 2022; China becomes a de-facto ruler of many African nations, 2024; China's army and air force surpasses the USA's in strength, 2028; A Chinese alliance replaces NATO, 2034; Chinese military interventions in various parts of the world, 2041; China has more military bases around the world than the USA, 2050; China establishes its own Martian colony, etc.

At what point does a president decide nuclear threat is justified? It's not like they suddenly decided to invade mainland Canada. No president in the world is ever going to think it would be justified to send nukes flying over a 500 billion trade deal between China and Japan, nor over a Chinese military intervention in Oman, nor over Chinese military bases in the Mediterrenean, nor over pro-Chinese secessionism in Hawaii, nor over a mega-project linking London to Beijing, nor over a military alliance between China and Russia,... yet all of these steps together contribute to the decline of Pax Americana.

Don't forget the farts from mars of 2045

It is impossible to prevent the slide into secondary status thru a single act such as a nuclear strike, that's certainly true, but any of those events could trigger a crisis, and as the election of Trump (pbuh) shows, America has the capacity to elect the kind of man who would lash out to save his presidency with a display of strength.

I hope they bomb israel into smitherings

the president can't just up and order a nuclear attack on a nation we are not at war with

it is also worth noting that ordering a nuclear attack is a great way not to "save" your presidency

I think the nuclear bomb race is really ment as a protection by entrance into the mutually assured destruction .
Point being north korea can be nuked without any similar retaliation, until it gets nuclear arms capability.

The real nuclear threat is mismanagement of nuclear waste.
I mean even with the amount of nuclear power we are still going to have to figure out what to do with all the nuclear waste on earth.

Fast breeder reactors nuqqa

It's onconcievable today but it'sunlikely America willmaintain itsfriendly attitude to China once the boot is on the other foot, the Presidency can and has changed (generally in the direction of becoming more powerful and autarchic), who knows what the situation might be in 2090?

And if not America, I can't see anywhere else doing it. China? For what purpose? They're already on the way up, why trigger a potentially disastrous war? Russia? Assuming their missiles even work, they're happy for the time being as partners with China, and Russian regimes have always been long-term planners due to their historic longevity. India and Pakistan? They both know they'd face near extermination, MAD worked for the USA and USSR and it will work here too for the same reason. Iran or Saudi Arabia, either at one another or at Israel? They're firmly committed to their respective alliances (China/Russia and the US, respectively) to do anything without the permission of their patron, no mere puppet state would be permitted to act in such a way.

Harry S "Two Terms" Truman says hi.

perspective ain't your thing I presume

it was only during such a worldwide conflict that nuclear weapons ever had a chance of being used

we do not live in that time any longer

>should the US shoulder the blame for the actions of its proxies?
Considering we arm them? Yeah. Any chemicals used in the region have about a 50/50 chance of them being there due to us as well.

so of course that automatically means we'd threaten nuclear annihilation?

stupid

So you know the future but are ignorant of the past. Interdasting.

Either Israel or North Korea. Maybe slight edge to th Norks as the Israelis would need a fairly substantial provocation, whereas the Norks would not.

you are just trolling, you're ignorant of the past

lol

You mean gave them to Saddam right?

Pakistan has said that it wouldn't rule out a tactical nuke in any war with india.

"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg. The guys who operated the gas chambers were hanged right alongside the guys who ordered them to do the gassing. Surely the same applies here? The people who do the actual gassing are as guilty as those who ordered them to do it, which in this case would be their own commanders since there's no way the US could order such a thing. Granted selling them the gas carries some guilt, but not 100% that's for sure.

Which is exactly the position during the Cold War. The USA and Russia never nuked it out because they both feared destruction, for India and Pakistan, even in the event of a totally one-sided launch, both nations will be devastated by the fallout and human displacement.

No, Pakistan has said that it might use nuclear missiles at things like indian armored spearheads while india has said that any nuclear strike on indian soldiers will be treated as a nuclear strike and thus merit retaliation.

all the countries in the op pic are orange you fucking dolt

Yes, EXACTLY the state between the powers during the Cold War.

Only India has an explicit no first use policy and the indian state is too busy protecting cows and making shekels to launch the first nuke.

Again: EXACTLY like during the Cold War. America had an explicit no first strike policy and lacked the political apparatus to initiate one. Russia had a retribution policy where any conventional invasion of it's territory or use of conventional weapons against its forces would be met with nuclear retaliation.

The question OP asked was who would drop the bomb.

>Too pussy to wipe a city out of existence

Wasn't that more a theoretical exercise than an actual strategy?

U.S.A.

They are dangerously stupid and trigger happy

Serbs

Russia.
The US will continue to push them into the corner, economically and politically. Sanctions, inviting more nations to join NATO (Montenegro just joined, Serbia and Ukraine are soon to follow), additional missile defense in Eastern Europe, additional troop deployments near Russian borders, increased military spending by all European NATO countries. NATO bases are now located in just 200 miles away from their second largest city. It would be the same if the Chinese had military bases 200 miles from LA.
Sooner or later Russians will have no other option other than capitulate, dismember their federation into dozens of completely independent states, eliminate all nuclear weapons and cease to exist as geopolitical entity.
Then they might decide in favor for "going out with a bang". Crimea was the first step in this direction.

>US could have finished them off long time ago if they wanted

It's just a different strategy - instead of one decisive knockout strike they use "death from thousand cuts" strategy. No invasion, but sanctions, restrictions, colored revolutions, missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and so on. When your opponent is big enough and it's hard to have 100% chance of success in conventional or even nuclear conflict, you have to weaken him first, so you bleed him with this strategy. Then you finish him off.

Russia tried many times to join NATO, last time it was in early 2000s - NATO refused on the ground that "if we take you we will have to take all other ex-USSR republics, so we rather take no one at all". And straight after that NATO invited the Baltic States into the Alliance and deployed missile defense systems in EE countries.

Make no mistake - there will be no reconciliation or middle ground. The US establishment is determined to bring Russia down for good. That's why you see this Russian narrative being used against Trump lately, now mere association with Russia is already considered a case of high treason.

Does anyone know the name of that thing that orders the destruction of Israel if it was being invaded? I remember reading that if Israel was ever being invaded, they would nuke themselves or destroy their country as ordered in the Torah

France, after it becomes a caliphate.
Or israel, after america kicks it off the dole and all its enemies come to extract payment owed.

The Samson Option?