I would say no one, but it depends, there are nuclear bunker buster bombs, if these count, I could see any number of states eventually using them. Like Israel & US against hardened/underground Iranian facilities.

Of the non crazy actors, Russia talks the most about using tactical nukes in its military doctrine. If they were up against it, they might drop a few to "deescalate".

1 - Trump (A Trumpless USA moves down to #4)
2 - Terrorist Organization
3 - N. Korea
4 - Middle East - Most likely Iran or Pakistan although Pakistan might just fall under #2 at this point.
5 - No One

I don't think anyone else should really be included on this list and if it does come from one of the other countries, I highly doubt it would be from the government itself. Hence reverting back to a Terrorist Group working inside of that country. Absolutely zero chance the government of a country like France, UK, China, or Russia does this, with Russia being the small exception, but again, probably not from the government technically in power at the time but someone else inside the country.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ame...pleted-uranium

would anyone count this?

Lestat, I know you have been on the forum for quite some time and at first look I assumed this thread was the obvious troll that it should have been.

After rewording the literal title of this thread, do you care to revise this list which has the only country to ever drop a nuke on another listed 3 ranks below a country which (most likely) does not have the capability to deliver a (comparatively by modern standards weak ass) weapon realistically no more than 25 miles outside their border. Food for thought cause honestly this list is preposterous if you think objectively, IMHO.

If you think about it, it would indeed be difficult for no one to nuke a city first.

I apologize I was quite drunk when I created OP and made several errors in lucidity.

The first (and worst?) was in the title. Obviously, the USA already has nuked TWO cities. I don't want to turn this into a WWII debate about whether it did in fact save more lives and suffering than it caused. I just want people to know that I do not dismiss the act or take it lightly.

The second error was listing no one as an answer. Obviously it is impossible for "no one" to nuke a city. It should've been: Other, or not going to happen.

My third error was forgetting about the UK and India in my liest.

Hopefully, that clears up some of my drunken mistakes and I apologize for them.

It's not a troll. Having been a kid/teen in the cold war era, nuclear holocaust has always been something I've been concerned about. I do think it's an eventuality that nuclear weapons will be used again.

After rewording the literal title of this thread, do you care to revise this list which has the only country to ever drop a nuke on another listed 3 ranks below a country which (most likely) does not have the capability to deliver a (comparatively by modern standards weak ass) weapon realistically no more than 25 miles outside their border.[/quote]

I've clarified my errors and the reason for them above. But I do not wish to revise my estimates. While the USA is the only country to have used nukes in war before, I do not think they are more likely to use them before the countries in my order (Doh! Otherwise, that wouldn't be my order!).

While it's almost certainly true that N.Korea doesn't hasn't achieved an intercontinental ballistic missile yet (let alone one which could be equipped with a nuclear warhead), experts disagree on how far they nuclear program is away from it. Therefore, I list USA behind N.Korea. But notice I placed them ahead of Pakistan. In fact, I was so drunk I left out the UK and India in my list as well. So my OP is very sloppy and I apologized for that.



Trust me. I am NOT waving any flags. It was an honest question that I totally messed up due to alcohol.

I wouldn't, but I would definitely call it chemical warfare though I am assuming the Pentagon wouldn't.

Which raises the question...

Is there an acknowledged diagnosis for these people who seem to have a dominant precept saying mathematics is truth and worth pursuing and all non-mathematics is completely arbitrary opinion and one is as good as another? That's not a perfect rendering but maybe someone knows what I am getting at. And why are these so afflicted individuals always conservative republicans?

So much wrong with your thought process. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have N Korea listed as a greater threat to use nukes than the States.

His very sophomoric point was that they don't have ICBM capabilities yet and therefore, are not more likely to launch a nuclear attack before the USA which does. Guess he's not considering shorter range missiles or other any other means to deliver warhead or the fact they WILL become more and more advanced in missile capabilities just as will Iran forges on with their nuclear program.

Unless US intelligence is very good.

First I've already explained my errors and reasons (acceptable or not) for lack of lucidity. Second, had YOU been paying attention to what you were reading would have noticed I had 12 possibilities (not 10) and carelessly omitted 2 from my list. Third, I did not ask for percentages. I asked for order of likelihood.

There are probably over a thousand ways you could have a fatal accident in the next 7 days. Would it be wrong for me to list 5 with a 6th option [will not happen] and ask for them to be put in order of likelihood without all 6 options adding up to 100%? I could list:

Car accident
Slips in bathtup
Heart attack
Stroke
Shot during robbery
Other

And this does NOT mean I think there is an 83% chance you'll die this week by one of the 5 on the list. Is that right or wrong O'Lord of maths? I've never made any secret of the fact I have an addled mind when it comes to math.

I didn't know Sklanksy embraced the spirit of PU so well!

Lestat, do you think the UK and India are really likely to nuke someone in the next decade? Like REALLY likely? Do you think there's a party not listed that is quite likely to start bombing someone?

Because if not, Sklansky's point still stands.

It's ok to make a mistake like you did in the OP. Just take the feedback and think about how you should adjust your thinking accordingly. "No one" is almost certainly the first option on your list.

I missed the part of 'with in the next decade'. I was just assumming at some point in the future. So yes, 'No one' should definitely be #1 and I would move that up to #1 on my list as well. I was just an in comprehensive idiot for a short period of time there.

Nice to see Sklansky has progressed from making faulty-reasoned OPs to making faulty-reasoned derails. Baby steps.

How is his reasoning faulty?

Yeah DS was correct based on OP and thread title.

FMP.

Rankings of instinct to immediately LOL Sklansly:

#1 Correct
#2 Incorrect
#3 No one

I'm confused after reading the thread and wished I'd just grunched, so I'll attempt to forget all of the above and just do a post-grunch:


I'll also plead ignorance and don't know how likely a nuclear attack is to happen (on civilians, not bunker busters). I do recognize there is a well over non zero likelihood and that chance is dependent on many factors, two of which are a nuclear state's stability and an ever increasing growth in technological capability of non-nuclear entities. The first we can strive to lower diplomatically and politically, but the second will continue to grow unabated. Our economies rely on it. Thus the capability for groups of angry men to spread havoc of the greatest devistation will increase exponentially, and the size of that group required to create that havoc and destruction will get smaller and smaller.

In other words, we're all ****ed eventually. No matter where "terrorist" is on the list currently, it is climbing. If Kim Jung Un doesn't pull the trigger soon, or Trump later, Ikleel "The Swine Killer" bin Ni matullah, or maybe Timmy McVeigh Jr. will drop the hammer somewhere. If we can somehow avoid all that by creating a vast intelligence network to stop it, the AI eventually developed to keep up with it all will destroy us. So live it up, politards.

What do you mean?

If the USA know N. Korea are about to do it then they will stop them (by doing it first if necessary).

No.

Possibly. My point was that I do think a nuclear warhead or dirty bomb of some kind (let's just call it WMD), will be used within the next decade and I was curious where people thought it would most likely come from.

My mistake was posting while drunk and committing what looked to be a ridiculous math error. But I was not asking for percentages. It is possible to order things by likelihood without them adding up to 100%.

Car accident
Slip in bathtub
Heart attack
Stroke
Shot during robbery
None of the above

You can put these in order of likelihood without implying that none of the above is only 17% likely to be the outcome. It may be 99%.



Maybe now that you know the apologies, errors, and causes for them that I've made, you should adjust your thinking. "No one" is almost certainly NOT the first option, because it would be quite impossible for "No one" to nuke a city. You're making the same mistake I did while drunk.

If you mean "not going to happen at all" within the next decade I disagree. If you think "not going to happen at all" is almost certainly the most likely scenario, then throw some odds at me and maybe we can make a bet.