Nuclear Weapons
- Thread starter gmlevan
- Start date
hi,
As far i know the following countries have nuclear weapons (known to World)
1. USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. France
5. UK
6. Israel
7. Pakistan
8. India
As not conformed but by media reports following countries are trying to get nuclear weapons(AS Said by USA, in my opinion).
1. Iran
2. North Korea
As far i know the following countries have nuclear weapons (known to World)
1. USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. France
5. UK
6. Israel
7. Pakistan
8. India
As not conformed but by media reports following countries are trying to get nuclear weapons(AS Said by USA, in my opinion).
1. Iran
2. North Korea
Simple answer: No, not anymore.gmlevan said:
Germany and Japan have signed the NPT and agreed themselves not to develop nuclear weapons, however.
During the 1960s and 1970s some parts in the west-german government seriously considered developing nuclear weapons. Any such ideas where shelved when external and (quite important) internal pressure against such a step proved to be much too high.
The possibility of Japan getting nuclear weapons may be a scenario for the future, should the relations between Japan and China deteriorate below a certain point.
About nuclear weapons it is important underline than during Cold War period, in Europe several countries ( I suppose Italy too) had american nuclear bombs stored with the “double key systemâ€.
In case of conflict situation that bombs could be used by the host country under the american approval against a common enemy.
Of course host countries were equipped and trained to employ the nuclear weapons in case of war.
How do we have to consider that organization? A shortcut to overcome the Non Proliferation Treaty?
Ciao.
In case of conflict situation that bombs could be used by the host country under the american approval against a common enemy.
Of course host countries were equipped and trained to employ the nuclear weapons in case of war.
How do we have to consider that organization? A shortcut to overcome the Non Proliferation Treaty?
Ciao.
Not really, since the US retained full control over the nukes and they merely extended delivery capabilities in this fashion.
While this way allied aircraft and pilots had the opportunity to train in scenarios involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons, this is nowhere near these countries having a nuclear capability for their own independet use.
While this way allied aircraft and pilots had the opportunity to train in scenarios involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons, this is nowhere near these countries having a nuclear capability for their own independet use.
O.K. you are right. The Governments that have signed the NPT are not capable of developing, producing and using by themselves any nuks.
During Cold War the U.S. had full control of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, but it still sounds me strange imagine an Italian or German pilot flying a Tornado carrying an American nuk.
It seams like a political trick allowing your soldiers to use this kind of armament if you previously have given up the atomic bomb with a public international treaty.
I would like to say that it was a “double face†strategy: for the public opinion our countries were good because they did not want to use the “terrible†weapon but for the military side we were all ready, full trained and equipped to use it.
The problem is moreover that the people of this host countries were not formally and clearly informed about this policy. Military Secrets? I have strong doubts because it was perfectly clear that if an Army or an Air Force has vectors and armaments (like Tornado or heavy howitzers) suited for nuclear war that country will be ready and inclined to use it.
Probably it was one of many contradictions that characterized the Cold War period .
(Please forgive me for my poor English)
Ciao.
During Cold War the U.S. had full control of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, but it still sounds me strange imagine an Italian or German pilot flying a Tornado carrying an American nuk.
It seams like a political trick allowing your soldiers to use this kind of armament if you previously have given up the atomic bomb with a public international treaty.
I would like to say that it was a “double face†strategy: for the public opinion our countries were good because they did not want to use the “terrible†weapon but for the military side we were all ready, full trained and equipped to use it.
The problem is moreover that the people of this host countries were not formally and clearly informed about this policy. Military Secrets? I have strong doubts because it was perfectly clear that if an Army or an Air Force has vectors and armaments (like Tornado or heavy howitzers) suited for nuclear war that country will be ready and inclined to use it.
Probably it was one of many contradictions that characterized the Cold War period .
(Please forgive me for my poor English)
Ciao.
Certainly public opinion and military needs do not concur on a regular basis. However the deciding factor in this arrangement simply was maximum deterrence and availability of enough aircraft at the right time to asume the part of the delivery systems. Keep in mind that the US, while having had significiant forces in Western Europe, still would have been forced to transfer more of their forces from CONUS in case of war.
Still these procedures do not form a nuclear capability of its own, so the NPT would be to no effect. In times of peace as well as in times of war every decision upon the use of these nukes would still have been first and foremost with the US government.
I cant speak for Italy, but in Germany (FRG) this was not considered a secret. All the basic information about this arrangement was and is available to the public domain. Actually in terms of procedures this wasnt that much different from the hundreds of N-tipped missiles located in West-Germany, where an approval of the german government was necessary as well. Of course such decisions created quite a fuss, especially with the political left and greens but this is only proof to the rather public handling of these questions.
No need to worry, at times I have to struggle myself...
Last edited:
That's assuming that whoever's holding the red button is a sane person.mach said:
1. During the cuban missile crisis, the captains on the soviet submarines sent to cuba were given VAGUE orders by their commanders and then exposed to aggressive ASW by the US navy. One very stressed commander came close to launching his nuclear tipped torpedo.
2. During that same crisis, Fidel Castro expressed his willingness for cuba to be sacrificed in a nuclear warwith the US. Even the soviets were shocked.
3. Mao reportedly was contemplating fighting and winning a nuclear war, believing it winnnable.
2. During that same crisis, Fidel Castro expressed his willingness for cuba to be sacrificed in a nuclear warwith the US. Even the soviets were shocked.
3. Mao reportedly was contemplating fighting and winning a nuclear war, believing it winnnable.
As more effective countermeasure's are developed against ALCM, SLCM, and blastic missiles the threat of nuclear war becomes more unlikely. With Ballistic Missile Interceptors and the Air Born Laser launching missiles will become costly and dangerous. If the Air Born Laser works out, shooting down missiles over the country that launched then will become extremely dangerous since radioactive debris could rain down all over the country.
This technology is in its infancy, but in the future will most likely be an effective countermeasure against an nuclear exchange.
This technology is in its infancy, but in the future will most likely be an effective countermeasure against an nuclear exchange.