Does Sup Forums think the nuclear leaders of the world have the nerve to actually use their arsenal?

Does Sup Forums think the nuclear leaders of the world have the nerve to actually use their arsenal?
Here's what I believe:

>Trump
Offensive: Unlikely for first strike, military can handle anyone so no real point.
Defensive: Certainly, if an ally is attacked.

>Putin
Offensive: Maybe if NATO sent troops into Ukraine or Belarus.
Defensive: Yes, without a doubt.

>May
Offensive: No
Defensive: Only as a last resort.

>Macron
Offensive: Most likely not, unless he wanted to go "fuck it" and try to become Napoleon 2.0
Defensive: Yes

>Xi
Offensive: Probably not, as it'd result in the west using it as an opportunity to destroy China.
Defensive: Probably not, for the same reason as above. Maybe against USA/Russia/Japan if absolutely necessary.

>Kim
Offensive: Yes, if he could somehow get it so the USA wouldn't blow North Korea off the face of the map.
Defensive: Yes.

>Modi
Offensive: Maybe first strike against Pakistan, but only if tensions were incredibly high.
Defensive: Yes, certainly. Especially if against Pakistan/China

>Mamnoon
Offensive: Maybe first strike against India, or Israel if they launched a unprovoked attack on say Tehran, or Damascus.
Defensive: Yes.

>Nethanyu
Offensive: No, maybe if it was proven that Iran had nukes, or if an invasion was on their border.
Defensive: Yes, maybe not against Turkey, however. As that'd destroy relations with NATO.

>Pakistan has nukes

This always freaks me out...

>where the world's nuclear weapons are
That's a map of "who has them" though.
Anyway no, no one is ever going to use them, unless someone who has no idea about what it means to use them tries an internal coup in Pakistan or NK and gives the order.

We can only deliver ours through our Vanguard submarines (will be replaced by Dreadnought-class). I sometimes wish we had some mini ones to fire from planes.

Aside from NK and Israel there is 0 chance of them being used any time soon

Submarines are the quickest way however, at least they can be.
They're also relatively reliable, as they can't really be taken out unless they're being followed by a hunter-killer sub at the exact moment a strike is called.

Not to mention USA has London surrounded by nuke Silos, so you're protected by USA. Just pray USA never wants revenge for Taxes.

France and the UK don't have quite the same apocalyptic amount of nukes as Russia and US but they've got more than enough to completely devastate even a country as large as America so MAD still applies

I reckon you are retarded if you think that one
person has any meaningful say in this.

whiter than you muhammed

at least in america and france it is one person
in their presidential system the president has absolute authority over these things

also it's a national disgrace that france has more than us

But all of those people are the Commander in chief of the military.
Sure other people have a say, but at the end of the day if they order a strike it's the militaries job to do it, not to not do it.

"Officially", but certainly you'd think that there is a network of well established decision makers who are not swapped every 4 years together with the president and his team.

Macron will bury you all six feet under

What the fuck are you talking about you Moldovan nigger

It isn't really relevant considering each Vanguard submarine can only carry a certain amount of warheads. After the initial strikes when are you ever going to call in tens or hundreds more?

keep finding yourself excuses you brit PUSSY

>la creatura is this impulsive

delete this

You idiot.

UK has 180 DEPLOYED nuclear warheads.
Vanguard sub carries 16 ICBMs. and 45 warheads
Each ICBM can carry up to 8 warheads.

UK could actually manage 512 deployed nuclear weapons and still be able to fire all of them off in one volley if they chose.

Of course, but only if they had time to prepare all 4 submarines because there's only ever one constantly at sea. The other 3 are in varying states of readiness or maintenance.

That still means 70% of British currently deployed nukes could be launched at any one time.
More than enough to get rid of the Fr*nch

No. Everyone knows by now about the global consequences and that the person that gives the order and is involved will never live in peace after doing it because it is a crime against humanity

Well, at this point, the person in charge of that have pretty much deleted humanity, so how could he care.

>tfw Spain had a nuclear program
>The program consisted in the creation of 200 nuclear warheads
>Franco freaked out and rejected it.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

president gets to say yes or no, sure, but he relys on a system of people who paint the picture for him
if someone doesn't want it to happen they wont frame the scenario as being reasonable

Only a mutt could make a thread as autistic as this.

no. under no circumstances.
besides the global world order doesn't want nuclear annihilation yet. i'm actually sceptical there are this much nukes in the world