The last Apartheid government got rid of them because they were afraid a black ruled government were going to take charge and did not trust them with nukes.
There were nuclear weapons on Polish territory, but they were in no sense controlled by the Polish People's army directly. So no, Poland never had nuclear weapons.
You can argue about Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but short answer is no.
I mean, all Russian invasions of Ukraine thus far have been justified, unlike other recent invasions (Late 1900s - Early 2000s). Despite the media painting it out as a, "Nazi invasion of Ukraine," it's completely neglecting the fact that Ukraine has genocided ethnic Russians, continues building military bases and bombs of Russian enemies on their Russian border, and in 2014 multiple votes held by the Crimean Parliament (Who were Ukrainian) came back with people in Crimea wanting to unify with Russia. 2014 only turned out to be an invasion because Ukraine wanted it to be one. If you actually look at other recent tensions you'll find China's invasions of Vietnam, USA's many invasions into the Middle East, etc.
Compared to that, Russia is quite chill. They are an incredibly opportunistic regime, but the US media paints them out to be much more of a monster, imperialist country than they actually are. I'm pretty sure the US has invaded more countries than Russia.
This is correct, although, as for germany, there were nuclear weapons on their territory, however they were not meant for the Germans to use them themselves (as a result of WWII, Germany wasn't allowed to posses and use Nuclear Weapons, same as Japan). Remember Germany was divided in 4 allied zones after the war, so in East Germany there probably were USSR Nuclear weapons at the time). As the allied forces startet withdrawing after the wall fell, they took the Nuclear Weapons with them. Regarding Italy I'm not sure, Belgium, The Netherlands and Turkey have US Nuclear Weapons, which they can use under NATO command. Ukraine, Kazachstan and Belarus used to have Nuclear Weapons at the time the USSR split up, this is correct also. They all should be added to this Quiz in my opinion, with the exeption or Germany and perhaps Italy (someting to investigate before altering).
Israel is no threat to its neighbors except that their neighbors are all bent on the destruction of Israel. This makes Israel a threat... sort of in the same way that keeping an unloaded handgun in a locked and secure case and some bullets in a drawer in the next room is a threat to your well being if you have suicidal tendencies.
Both are threats to eachother. Yes alot of neighbouring nations want Isreal gone, or at least they wanted to. On the other hand, saying that Israel is no threat to its neighbours is redicilous aswell as Israel has and still atttacks its neighbourgs on various occasions while those neighbours have not attacked Israel recently at all.
@tuub, when has Israel attacked any of its neighbors in aggression and not defense or retaliation? The closest example I can think of to that is 1956 when Israel conspired with Britain and France to seize the Sinai and Suez from Egypt; though that was in response to Egypt's nationalization of the Sinai and blocking Israeli shipping which could be seen as an act of aggression, and the Americans forced Israel to give back the Sinai and the British to back down. It also hardly is indicative of a willingness by Israel to use nuclear weapons to utterly destroy an enemy; whereas many of Israel's neighbors have expressed a desire to utterly destroy Israel.
They are surrounded by people who hate them because they made themselves hated. Who decides to come onto someone's country, rename it and take power over it, while oppressing the original citizens? not to mention, legally, palestinians should have some land, but there are over 150 israeli settlements on their LEGAL land. this is why people hate them.
"Who decides to come onto someone's country, rename it and take power over it, while oppressing the original citizens?" Stromae, you could fill a book with people or nations who did that - oh, wait, someone did fill a book - it's called History of the World. The book just keeps getting larger.
Kalbahamut, reading from the Israeli Apologist Playbook. I think he missed chapter 7. Other than that, I think he has it all covered. Stick to trivia and leave historical analysis to the less glossy-eyed.
tshalla, you haven't refuted anything that kalbahamut said. Does teaching children to hate all Jews and swear their destruction count as a kind of "apartheid"? The entire culture surrounding Israel is bent on their destruction.
No, that would not be apartheid. It would be something else awful. When we use terms like terrorism, we have to use them consistently - applying them equally to all relevant cases. When we talk of things like apartheid and fascism, we conjure particular historical cases. If there's an analogy to be made to those cases, inevitably there will be significant differences, but there must be something essential that connects a case to the historical cases we're using for comparison. One example: when I was at Yad Vashem I was captivated by the display about the Warsaw ghetto. I was struck years later by the similarities between that walled/fenced, racially-demaracated neighbourhood and the new Israeli wall separating Palestinians in the West Bank from each other and Israel (to say nothing of the prison that is Gaza). The language justifying the walls in Poland and Palestine is eerily similar. Fascism, in any form, bothers me anywhere. Does it only bother you in certain cases?
you're so confused you don't realize you are confused, which is why attempting to have a conversation is pointless. So I can only express my regret and sympathy. I haven't said anything that was meant to excuse anything, I've only stated pretty plain and uninteresting facts. Also I don't think you know what the word apologetics means.
Basic principle: declare some criteria by which your terms are to be judged and then apply these equally in all cases. Anything short of this will quickly descend into apologetics. This'll be tough for an Americo-phile, but try.
Point out one instance where I've applied unequal standards to anyone. I'm guessing the problem here is in your biased perception. You seem to assume an awful lot of intentions or prejudices that I do not have. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you see others as biased because YOU are biased? Of course not. :P Prove any instance where I've been inconsistent and if I see the comment I will admit it and thank you for pointing it out. Throw insults without any proof and I'll continue not taking you seriously.
Also I am not a patriot or a nationalist. I respond to bigots who are unfairly prejudiced against or critical of the USA or Israel. Because there are so many of these people, it might appear like I am in favor of or especially enamored with these countries. I'm not. I left the US almost a decade ago and have no intention of going back. Israel is a fascinating place but I'd never want to live there and don't support the idea of countries based on religions.
How about its recent actions (see airstrikes) in Syria and Lebanon?
The neighbours of Israel never expressed a desire to utterly destroy Israel, they only expressed such desire to its government and its status as a country, not the country itself.
On top of that i do not think the history should be forgotten in this matter. Israel, or Jewish settlers back in the day, contributed massively to the hatred that Palestinians, Arabs and many others feel today when they look at Israel. The current Israëli government, nor any Israëli government over the past years have done anything to settle relations with Palestine or with its neighbours. In fact, the amount of countries criticizing Israel on its policy regarding its neighbours, especially Palestine, is only increasing in recent years and will continue as long as they keep following such agressive policy and as long as they refuse to make peace with their neighbours.
Israel is very secret in their war against the Arab world. They support and orchestrate the overthrow of secular regimes, such as in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. They then have their giant puppet (USA) go in and destroy those nations.
tuub: I'll be honest I haven't been closely following recent current events like I usually do; but then I guess it doesn't matter as I see your comment was left 2 years ago and I don't feel like going back to see what exactly was going on that week.
Israel's neighbors never expressed a desire to destroy Israel (the country), only to destroy it's status as a country? How does that make sense? I guess... you could say that some of Israel's neighbors have *merely* expressed their hellbent intent to commit wholesale genocide against all the *people* of Israel.. so... that might be comforting to the rocks there? Iran did mention wanting to wipe Israel off the map. That could be interpreted as a threat to the geography, though I'm sure you're right and they only meant it metaphorically- ending Israeli sovereignty, destroying it's democracy and government, rounding up and murdering all of its citizens, demolishing its history. Don't know why Israelis would feel threatened by that.
I also don't think history should be forgotten. Not so much because it's actually relevant to the best course of action today- I don't believe that it is- but rather because the history of the region is so heavily politicized and mythologized and spun in to so many false narratives that are used to justify actions and political agendas today that it is useful to know the true history to try and deconstruct some of those narratives.
If you believe that hatred of Jews and Israelis is entirely justified and the conflict is all one-sided, then I humbly submit that you do not know your history very well. I'm not saying that Israelis are without fault; I'm not saying that forming religious ethno-states is a good idea; but I am saying the history is not nearly as simple or one-sided as your comment implies you believe it is. And hatred of Jews amongst Muslims goes back to the time of Muhammad, well before there was an Israel.
Of course, all of this discussion neglects the evidence for an Israeli conquest of Palestine at some point between 2000 and 1000 BC (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/05/Extra-Biblical-Evidence-for-the-Conquest.aspx#Article).
Aesthus: there is pretty good evidence that a Jewish kingdom of some sort existed in Israel/Palestine at some point in ancient history, and there is even good evidence that there was a real King David. However, evidence for Moses and Joshua and their conquest of Canaan as described in the book of Joshua really is non-existent. Israelis have looked very hard to find such evidence and have in the end had to admit that in all likelihood Moses was a myth.
But... whether Moses, Joshua (probably no), David, and Solomon (probably yes) were real or not, does that have some bearing on the discussion about Israel being a threat to its neighbors? Or you were just saying that Jews were there before Arabs?
Uh, guys, Israel was completely willing to give Palestine way more land than now in the original 1948 agreement. The PALESTINIANS rejected it. The palestinians in Israel can become teachers, politicians, judges, etc., but israelis in muslim countries are non-existent. Israel has done its best to keep innocent palestinians from harm in the Gaza Strip by telling them to get out of the way before they target terrorist hideouts. The palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, for innocents to be near their hideouts, to be in harms way. The palestinian terrorists dig tunnels to kill jews in Israel, and launch rockets to kill as many people as possible. It is the MUSLIMS of the middle east who want the jews to die, and the jews were there first. Even christians were there before muslims. So no, they dont have rights to that land. Even if they did, Israel has been more than fair in trying to negotiate with them. They are getting themselves killed. They want everyone else to die.
Guys, the israelites conquered CANAANITES, not palestinians. Even if they were related, they were different people they kicked out a very long time ago.
I would like to point the thousands of murders that palestinians commit near Gaza, and that's not even talking about using women and children as shields, launching rockets at civilians, among other things. Maybe most palestinians don't want to attack, but the terrorists residing within Gaza do. I know this because I have jewish friends who go to Israel occasionally and i've talked with them about it (for a research project).
@aethus from what I understand of history, Palestinians moved in after the jewish diaspora, meaning the canaanites from around Moses's time were different people.
qcumber: no worries, though, your understanding of the history here seems pretty basic and I wouldn't believe everything your friends tell you who visit Israel occasionally. The history of the region is fascinating, though, so if you're interested I'd recommend reading about it. Preferably something from historians without any agenda or axe to grind (can be hard to find those sometimes particularly on this topic), not biased nationalists of any variety.
@kalbahamut Israel is a threat not only to Palestinians, but to the whole middle east area. It's a made up country by the west in the area. Please read more before sharing your arrogant propaganda (which you've been doing for 6 years straight now).
:) I'm quite well read on this subject. I'm not going to presume that you need to read more (that would be a bit arrogant?), but you are the one sharing propaganda. All countries are made up. "The West" had little to do with the invention of this one. But it is part of anti-Israeli propaganda to imply that Israel is not a legitimate country but somehow a foreign colonization or occupation of lands rightly owned by Muslims. This is false. Also irrelevant to the level of threat posed by the country. The biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East is tribalistic misinformation like the above, which makes coexistence unthinkable and negotiations impossible.
None one here is exactly wrong. Israel IS a threat to the middle east and the middle east IS a threat to Israel. Israel's people's religious hold on their land is extreme as all hell and they're literally taught in school to hate all Muslims. Haven't done enough research into countries like Jordan, but I'm sure they're taught to hate all Israeli's. Israel is a high-tech nation with incredibly powered armed forces, meaning it could kill thousands of Muslim people (and would), but it could never take over the middle east because then it'd be majority Muslim which the country can't have due to stability reasons.
Israel are a threat to its neighbours? Good. Because if they weren't, they would all be slaughtered. Israel send missiles to take out Hamas and Hezbollah? Good. This makes the world a safer place. Israeli settlers settle the West Bank? Good. This will help them protect themselves. Israel cooperates with US intentions in the region? Great. Better than Russia/China/Iran. Israelis build a wall between themselves and the Palestinians? Great. This means they can live in peace.
"Israeli settlers settle the West Bank? Good. This will help them protect themselves."
What? This will help whom protect themselves? The Israelis? How? It antagonizes people and puts many Israelis in danger. I don't necessarily agree with all your other statements though I could at least follow your logic. I don't get this one at all, though.
depends on which Israeli you talk to. There's no uniform opinion amongst Israelis about this. And bear in mind the term "Israelis" includes Jewish ultra-nationalists, religious nuts and extremists of both Jewish and Muslim varieties, secular Jews who are Jewish by ethnicity only, those who made aliyah to Israel and those who were born in the country, Muslims, Christians, atheists, pacifists, war-mongers and hard-liners, those who identify as "Palestinian," ultra-Orthodox Jews committed to bringing about the end days and summoning the Jewish messiah, other ultra-Orthodox Jews who are opposed to Zionism entirely and believe that Israel should not exist, and others. Israel is a diverse place and those with Israeli citizenship embody this fact.
got all the ones that still have them in a flash.... took me a while to get South Africa. I had no idea that they used to have nukes. I guessed every West European country, every former SSR and Soviet client state, and pretty much every other British commonwealth country before I got to South Africa.
AND! Madagascar. They just don't have the equipment to use it. They used to be a strong economy country. Then they built a nuke and the only thing the nuked destroyed was their economy. They asked France to take it, but France said no.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons nor is there any proof at all that they are even thinking of making any. Yes politicians and media cry out loud that Iran wants to build nukes but even the CIA and the Mossad admitted openly that those claims where just fairytales and that there has been no proof of such things.
The Nuclear Program of Iran is one of peacefull purposes, think of electricity and medical stuff.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons but you'd have to be brain dead to think that their nuclear program wasn't about making weapons. They are sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world. They have among the largest natural gas reserves in the world. They also have considerable geothermal energy production. Iran is one of the world's top energy exporters and they also sell off huge amounts of surplus electricity because their current power plants produce so much more than they need. The "medical stuff" excuse also does not hold up under even minimal scrutiny. And you think we believe in fairy tales?
tuub, do you really believe that? "nor is their any proof at all that they are even thinking of making any" is demonstrably false. "the CIA and Mossad admitted openly that those claims were just fairytales"; link please? They say regularly that they believe the Iranians are working on a bomb.
The entire reason why western media have been whining about it is because Iran is not a pro-western country. In fact, now that a deal has been reached, how much of that whining do you still hear? Pretty much nothing even though the deal has changed Iran's nuclear program in any way.
The Western world is concerned about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran because the country is led by religious zealots who have expressed a desire to commit genocide, because they are a known state sponsor of terrorism, and also because they are belligerent and act as a rogue nation. It's perfectly reasonable to not want such countries to have such weapons.
There's also this thing called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Rockman- then you are someone else who can't be taken seriously, though be that as it may Saudi Arabia does not have and is not pursuing nuclear weapons.
Libya had them until recently. Was only public knowledge when ISIS were steering towards their territory and they had them and the UN or US got them moved to Germany apparently to be destroyed.
Ukrine? After declaring thier independence from the Soviet Union, they were immediately propelled to third place in their number of nukes. They then gave them all back to Russia.
I came to post this too, but I'm guessing they fall under the disclaimer "Not counting countries that hold nuclear weapons under the control of another country."
Uh ive no idea whether israel is a threat or whatever...but what i do know is that their intelligence is one among the finest in the world...good quiz b/w;)
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan all had nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR in 1991. Belarus had 81, Kazakhstan had 1,400 and Ukraine had over 5,000. Kazakhstan gave them up in 1995, and Ukraine and Belarus gave them up in 1996. You should add them.
It looks like Quizmaster is right, the nuclear weapons were located in Ukraine, but they weren't able to use them:
While Ukraine had physical control of the weapons, it did not have operational control of the weapons as they were dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.
I don't trust most countries in the world, but it seems that out of the more powerful ones, Russia, China, and the USA are especially untrustworthy, and to be honest, evil at times.
The countries with the strongest and most stable political or democratic institutions, with low levels of corruption, a strong rule of law, and positive diplomatic and trade relations with the majority of other countries in the world could be considered more trustworthy than others. But any country's leadership can take a turn for the worse and this can happen very quickly and unexpectedly. See... the US going from Obama to Trump. Or the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, Khomeini or Castro. But the Obama -> Trump transition is arguably the most remarkable downgrade in leadership quality in modern world history, both in its severity and rapidity.
Best solution to this problem would probably be to make it so NO country has nuclear weapons. They are too dangerous to keep around anywhere.
So glad South Africa stopped their nuclear program... Imagine what can happen in such a weak, under-developed country... Would probably be worse than Pakistan...
Pakistan may not have misused nuclear weapons yet, but @Abhishek has a point. A country that is highly prone to coups and political crises is not the best place to have nukes. Moreover, it's a misuse of funds. Pakistan has a pretty weak economy and much of the money the Pakistani government used to develop nuclear weapons could have been invested elsewhere. In contrast, India might not be the richest country but overall it still is wealthier and has a much stronger economy than Pakistan, so it has the money to develop nukes without compromising its development.
Ukraine and Kazakhstan technically had nukes, but they gave them to Russia as an agreement that Russia would not be military aggressive towards them... well look at Ukraine now
the "south island?" What island? Do you mean the Crimean Peninsula? Crimea (internationally recognized as part of Ukraine) has been officially annexed by the Russian Federation. It is NOT back in Ukrainian hands, far from it. Further, large sections of Eastern Ukraine have been under occupation by Russian or Russian-aligned forces, under the guise of a civil war, since 2014, notably including the large city of Donetsk, and previously Kharkiv. You apparently do not know what you're talking about.
which is why I said Donetsk is currently occupied and Khakiv previously was. I mentioned those two because they are both among the largest cities in Ukraine. Luhansk is smaller.
Israel and Palestine: A perfect example of the heirs of two brothers (Isaac and Ishmael) in a constant feud over their inheritance and who is entitled to the spoils.
Not all Arabs descend only from Ishmael. According to the Bible, Abraham had six sons with his second wife, Keturah. Some scholars believe Keturah was actually Hagar whom he married after Sarah's death, but others believe she was a different woman. Although Abraham left everything to Isaac after he died, he gave gifts to his other sons before his death, and Isaac and Ishmael together buried their father. (Gen. 25:1-10) Also, Ishmael's daughter Mahalath was the third wife of Isaac's son, Esau, so it doesn't seem that the family was estranged. (Gen. 28:9) I don't know what the Quran says about Abraham's descendants. Maybe someone else here will answer that question.
There are several different religious traditions that hold Isaac was the progenitor of the "Jewish race" and Ishmael/Ismail the progenitor of the "Arab race." Muslims traditionally believe that Ibrahim took his son Ismail, fathered by his wife (not servant or concubine) Hagar, into the desert and there built a house for Allah, the Kabaa. They even say you can still see his footprints eternalized in the stone of Mecca, so they've got hard evidence .... of course in reality these stories are fairy tales without any basis in fact. The first Hebrews became a distinct ethnicity somewhere in the Levant some 3000+ years ago. "Arab" was a blanket term used to describe any of the desert-dwelling nomads who lived beyond the edge of civilization on the Arabian peninsula. Several hundred years after the Muslim conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, pan-Arabism became a thing and all these many different subjugated peoples started identifying as Arabs.
Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine also used to have Nukes. And under the NPT, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands get Nukes belonging to other countries.
The sad thing is, these nations probably won't ever give up their nuclear weapons. There was a treaty a few years ago calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Even though it had tons of support among developing countries, absolutely none of the nuclear powers or members of NATO (who support the nuclear capabilities of the US/UK/France) signed it. Just check out this map.
As some have pointed out, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, have all had nuclear warheads at some point according to your source. If these are included in the "countries that hold nuclear weapons under the control of another country" as mentioned in your caveat, I'd put them on the quiz grayed-out; I feel like it's a little unclear right now.
I took a tour of an old missile silo in North Dakota (a very remote part of the state, too!) and at the peak of the Cold War, if ND was an independent country, it would have had the third largest stockpile in the world, after the US and USSR.
BTW, it was really cool! For Cold War era kids, it is worth the journey! Cooperstown, ND - check it out!
It's not what is meow.
It's why is meow.
Meow
also meow
Meow! Miau! Miaou! Miao! Miav!
Me
Meo
Meow
Meo
Me
M
You can argue about Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but short answer is no.
Compared to that, Russia is quite chill. They are an incredibly opportunistic regime, but the US media paints them out to be much more of a monster, imperialist country than they actually are. I'm pretty sure the US has invaded more countries than Russia.
Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey have nuclear weapons.
Also I am not a patriot or a nationalist. I respond to bigots who are unfairly prejudiced against or critical of the USA or Israel. Because there are so many of these people, it might appear like I am in favor of or especially enamored with these countries. I'm not. I left the US almost a decade ago and have no intention of going back. Israel is a fascinating place but I'd never want to live there and don't support the idea of countries based on religions.
How about its recent actions (see airstrikes) in Syria and Lebanon?
The neighbours of Israel never expressed a desire to utterly destroy Israel, they only expressed such desire to its government and its status as a country, not the country itself.
On top of that i do not think the history should be forgotten in this matter. Israel, or Jewish settlers back in the day, contributed massively to the hatred that Palestinians, Arabs and many others feel today when they look at Israel. The current Israëli government, nor any Israëli government over the past years have done anything to settle relations with Palestine or with its neighbours. In fact, the amount of countries criticizing Israel on its policy regarding its neighbours, especially Palestine, is only increasing in recent years and will continue as long as they keep following such agressive policy and as long as they refuse to make peace with their neighbours.
Israel's neighbors never expressed a desire to destroy Israel (the country), only to destroy it's status as a country? How does that make sense? I guess... you could say that some of Israel's neighbors have *merely* expressed their hellbent intent to commit wholesale genocide against all the *people* of Israel.. so... that might be comforting to the rocks there? Iran did mention wanting to wipe Israel off the map. That could be interpreted as a threat to the geography, though I'm sure you're right and they only meant it metaphorically- ending Israeli sovereignty, destroying it's democracy and government, rounding up and murdering all of its citizens, demolishing its history. Don't know why Israelis would feel threatened by that.
If you believe that hatred of Jews and Israelis is entirely justified and the conflict is all one-sided, then I humbly submit that you do not know your history very well. I'm not saying that Israelis are without fault; I'm not saying that forming religious ethno-states is a good idea; but I am saying the history is not nearly as simple or one-sided as your comment implies you believe it is. And hatred of Jews amongst Muslims goes back to the time of Muhammad, well before there was an Israel.
But... whether Moses, Joshua (probably no), David, and Solomon (probably yes) were real or not, does that have some bearing on the discussion about Israel being a threat to its neighbors? Or you were just saying that Jews were there before Arabs?
What? This will help whom protect themselves? The Israelis? How? It antagonizes people and puts many Israelis in danger. I don't necessarily agree with all your other statements though I could at least follow your logic. I don't get this one at all, though.
The Nuclear Program of Iran is one of peacefull purposes, think of electricity and medical stuff.
Here are some sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/leaks-netanyahu-misled-iran-nuclear-programme-guardian-iran-nuclear-speech-2012-150218165622065.html
https://www.rt.com/news/mossad-iran-nuclear-programme-851/
The entire reason why western media have been whining about it is because Iran is not a pro-western country. In fact, now that a deal has been reached, how much of that whining do you still hear? Pretty much nothing even though the deal has changed Iran's nuclear program in any way.
There's also this thing called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
you link to propaganda that insults common sense
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad listening to an expert during a tour of Tehran's research reactor center on February 15, 2012 (AFP Photo) © AFP
. . .
Iran insists on the utterly peaceful character of its nuclear program and promises not to give it up at any cost.
You can share this story on social media:
I do wish there was a like button on this site.
I was just spamming big powerful countries until I got it right
While Ukraine had physical control of the weapons, it did not have operational control of the weapons as they were dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.
They should have kept the nukes.
Best solution to this problem would probably be to make it so NO country has nuclear weapons. They are too dangerous to keep around anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
Scoring
You scored 10/10 = 100%
26.8% of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is 8
Your high score is 10
Your fastest time is 3:31
wow first try :>
Why would they want otherwise.
27.7% of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is 8
Your high score is 10
Your fastest time is 2:39
27.7% of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is 8
Your high score is 10
Your fastest time is 0:15
And maybe put up a category with "speculated" to include Iran
BTW, it was really cool! For Cold War era kids, it is worth the journey! Cooperstown, ND - check it out!