Why does Israel get to keep its nuclear weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

To be fair, the power of the payload and the delivery method said country can realistically achieve probably has a lot to do with just how much they can get away with. Best Korea has very weak payloads that can't even cover the center of NYC and their missiles are pathetic.

A single nuclear sub loaded with a MIRV with 6 hydrogen bomb payloads is more frightening than some of the weaker nuclear powers.

The problem with Best Korea is that, theoretically, Kim Jong Un can get his crappy little nukes next door to the Korea that everybody loves.

---

I'm sure that doesn't really matter. They're nukes. How crap or how not crap they are is unimportant. I guess no one wants them shot at anything that isn't a deserted island where they can test them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Given the wind patterns, wouldn't Japan and the US to a lesser extent get the worst fallout?

---

Too many variables to calculate properly. Yes, the prevailing winds do trend that direction -- a fact Japan used in its balloon bombing campaign in WW2 -- but precipitation, specific physical composition of ground zero for particulates, specific type of explosion, etc. would all factor into how much fallout, how dangerous, and how far it would spread.

Look at it this way. A bunch of armed men are sitting in a circle with shotguns. There is no love lost amongst any of them. Would any one of them willingly give up their gun?
Of course nukes are weapons of mass destruction and would probably bring about the end of mankind blah blah blah, but seriously, what country would give up their ace in the hole just to stay on the moral high ground? Specially if the chances of everyone else giving up theirs are non existent....
Personally I think nukes are dangerous and if they ever fall into the hands of suicidal extremists that would be a really bad day. But until then no one who isn't suicidal will actually use one, just because they are so dangerous.
Also China and India follow a no first use doctrine, which many other NPT nations don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

Look at it this way. A bunch of armed men are sitting in a circle with shotguns. There is no love lost amongst any of them. Would any one of them willingly give up their gun?
Of course nukes are weapons of mass destruction and would probably bring about the end of mankind blah blah blah, but seriously, what country would give up their ace in the hole just to stay on the moral high ground? Specially if the chances of everyone else giving up theirs are non existent....
Personally I think nukes are dangerous and if they ever fall into the hands of suicidal extremists that would be a really bad day. But until then no one who isn't suicidal will actually use one, just because they are so dangerous.
Also China and India follow a no first use doctrine, which many other NPT nations don't.

---

Doctrines ain't worth the paper they are written on in such uncivilized states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Doctrines ain't worth the paper they are written on in such uncivilized states.

---

Umm...Doctrines aren't written on paper. Unlike treaties. To put it simply, they are more like a plan. Or something the plan is based on.
So unless you're basically saying that the uncivilized states don't intend to follow their own plans, your statement makes no sense.

Also I'd rather not get into debating who's civilized or what civilization means because that's moot, and usually ends with arguments which are little more than 'mine is bigger than yours'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

Umm...Doctrines aren't written on paper. Unlike treaties. To put it simply, they are more like a plan. Or something the plan is based on.
So unless you're basically saying that the uncivilized states don't intend to follow their own plans, your statement makes no sense.

Also I'd rather not get into debating who's civilized or what civilization means because that's moot, and usually ends with arguments which are little more than 'mine is bigger than yours'.

---

Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of that :bow:

And you are right about the second part as well, note however that I rank India FAR above China in that regard *India is still not IMHO quite up to European standards*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of that :bow:

And you are right about the second part as well, note however that I rank India FAR above China in that regard *India is still not IMHO quite up to European standards*

---

They number 1/3 of the world's population. European countries numbering in a dozen million are failing at life and everything else, so I'd cut them some slack.

So why doesn't Australia have nukes then? If all these other nations need them, why don't the majority of the worlds nations not have them?

If all these nations do but don't intend on using them at great cost in production and maintenance. It would seem they have a bunch of white elephants.

Who's going to threaten Australia?

The dingoes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Who's going to threaten Australia?

The dingoes?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTdOQjmbAHY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So why doesn't Australia have nukes then? If all these other nations need them, why don't the majority of the worlds nations not have them?

If all these nations do but don't intend on using them at great cost in production and maintenance. It would seem they have a bunch of white elephants.

---

Australia doesn't need any to make its local wildlife any more ... 'interesting'.

Besides, you already have the Uranium mining ...