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.
Caleb White
>Pakistan has nukes
This always freaks me out...
Anthony Torres
>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.
Cooper Miller
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.
Daniel Richardson
Aside from NK and Israel there is 0 chance of them being used any time soon
Owen Carter
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.
Jeremiah Gray
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
Matthew Price
I reckon you are retarded if you think that one person has any meaningful say in this.
Blake Mitchell
whiter than you muhammed
Isaac Rodriguez
at least in america and france it is one person in their presidential system the president has absolute authority over these things
Nathan Nelson
also it's a national disgrace that france has more than us
Jaxson Anderson
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.
Robert Howard
"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.
Samuel Brown
Macron will bury you all six feet under
Liam Adams
What the fuck are you talking about you Moldovan nigger
James Lopez
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?
Oliver Lopez
keep finding yourself excuses you brit PUSSY
Parker Rogers
>la creatura is this impulsive
William Nguyen
delete this
Julian Allen
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.
Alexander Foster
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.
Xavier Powell
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
Jaxson Green
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
Ryder Sanchez
Well, at this point, the person in charge of that have pretty much deleted humanity, so how could he care.
Kevin Morgan
>tfw Spain had a nuclear program >The program consisted in the creation of 200 nuclear warheads >Franco freaked out and rejected it.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Zachary Lewis
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
Isaac Morgan
Only a mutt could make a thread as autistic as this.
John Richardson
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