With it's recent and seemingly endless "saber rattling" it seems (to this casual observer) to be North Korea, but I could be wrong, as I'm not an expert on the current or potential nuclear capabilities of the world's nations. Your insight on this topic is greatly appreciated.
I imagine the greatest nuclear threat to the U.S. is the U.S. Russia and most likely China could be persuaded to greatly reduce their arsenals if we were willing to do the same, Iran would likely not have an anti-Western theocracy in place today if not for American Cold War-era imperialism, North Korea probably wouldn't care about the U.S. if it had never got involved all those years ago in the war or then continued to maintain a military presence on the peninsula from then on, and so long as the government of Pakistan is stable their arsenal will only be there to deter neighboring, nuclear rival India. In fact, I am honestly having a hard time thinking of one nuclear stand-off affecting the U.S. in which it didn't play some big role in events leading up to the brink. The point of saying so is not to rag on the States... but to point out ours has traditionally been an aggressive country, and at times that gives rise to rather unpleasant consequences, if not immediately then at some point decades later. So far as I can tell, Russia seems to be much less of a threat than it used to be for a number of reasons, though it now possesses the most nuclear weapons of any country and its financial problems with disposing of weapons it no longer wants presents a threat insofar as there are a lot of devices for them to keep track of and protect over there. The Russian Federation's means of delivery are inferior to their American counterparts on most fronts and they could not launch a preemptive first strike and avoid overwhelming retaliation without pulling off some breathtaking feat of cyber-attack prowess (assuming they even want to attack the U.S. at all, which they do not). As for the PRC, its economic interests are so intertwined with those of the States at this point that I cannot honestly see us diving into an all-out Cold War II: Atomic Boogaloo together any time soon. Maybe it will happen a few tens of years from now if both superpowers continue to be ethnocentric and determined to throw around their weight in geopolitics... but for now China is only a major world power in its own backyard. Even if they were to strike U.S. cities and somehow miraculously manage to avoid nuclear retaliation, how would they even get their troops over here to follow up with a land invasion? If I had to choose an option from the rest of your list however my selection would be North Korea. Theirs is pretty much a failed state, the system was rather unstable in the weeks and months leading up to Kim Jong Un's ascent, and I suspect the people of the country do not hold him in nearly as high regard as they did Sung or even Un's father, Kim Jong Il, years ago. If the government collapses there will be a serious clusterf*ck of chaos and organized crime in the North that could easily put nuclear weapons into the hands of overzealous military leaders or, perhaps even worse, give arms dealers some weapons-grade fissile material to sell on the black market. Figuring out what makes that regime tick and how to deal with them is pretty complex and seems extraordinarily difficult to manage. Among our allies, I would say Israel is the worst threat since their possession of nuclear weapons adds to the number of good reasons Iran has to develop an arsenal of its own. On the other hand, both the UK and France have more hardware than and a superior ability to project force overseas relative to Israel. There are a lot of ways to approach this issue!
Pakistan is the country with that dangerous combination of a fairly developed nuclear weapons program and instability. India is most likely to feel their wrath but the US would likely get involved in defending that democracy.
I chose Pakistan because I believe their government is more likely than any other nuclear power to lose control over their weapons or weapons-grade nuclear material. And if they do, it will likely be to jihadists. That seems to me to be a far more serious threat than the possibility that any nation would be dumb enough to actually fling a warhead at us.
It is hard to determine such a thing given that smaller devices exist today than in the Cold War when clearly Russia was the #1 nuclear threat to the US. But those days have changed, I believe. I think the chances of fired missiles is small fry from Russia. China is more likely to fire, and North Korea even more likelier. What concerns me is the alliance Iran has built-up in South America. Though Chavez has died, I haven't heard anything about Iran-Venezuela relations crumbling. And as two US senators witnessed, penetrating the US border is as easy as climbing a fence. Since apparently our border is going undefended for two hours every day now (I heard that on Fox), the opportunity to infiltrate would conceivably grow. Though I voted for Iran, I think Pakistan is troublesome too. I don't particularly think they, the government, would use them on us, but I think they could very well be put in a position within the next couple of years that shows their lack of strength in security. There have already been attacks... At any particular rate, I think it will be Muslims of some kind that set a big bomb off in the US.
Greatest nuclear threat against the US? The US itself, of course. The more they act like tyrants and (*)(*)(*)(*) off NK, the more they will inflame, and any attack will be their own fault. I don't see any other country a threat, they are only a threat if America doesn't back down and keep quiet.
I had to go with NK....but not because of the direct and pathetic sabre rattling. They have nuclear technology weaponized, are extremely poor and getting poorer, and have incentive to sell to those who would be happy to put on on a cargo vessel sitting in SF harbor.
just back off and shut up while the north goes an incorporates the south into it's giant concentration camp? I find it infinitively funny that you people seem to believe your're on the moral highground with your hands off isolationist approach to things while your position really is to let people die and suffer even if you could've easily prevented it. There is nothing moral about that; evil should be confronted if it can be.
I chose other. The U.S government has caused more harm to this nation than any other nation could dream of inflicting. Our government sold this nation and its wealth to the highest bidders.. rented out its military for corporate greed.. and is finally complicite in blatant theft from the tax payers to pay off corrupt bankers and financiers.
I agree 100%. It has to be Pakistan. North Korea is a threat, no doubt, but they are not as unstable as Pakistan, and they don't have millions of Islamist lunatics who are willing to die, just for the chance to kill millions of us in the West.
