Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find it strange that the only reason 'peaceful' countries keep nuclear weapons is to keep the peace via a Nuclear deterant. It is ironic that this means the whole of world diplomacy is based on fear, with seats at the big boys table given to those who have nuclear weapons due to the simple fact that they could kill a vast amout of people.

Wouldn't the best way to go be to divert the money needed to manufacture and maintain nuclear weapons into a missile defence shield to shoot down any missiles that get shot at you? Then if any do get through, you have the last laugh as most of the citizens in the area die relatively quickly, while the country that shot the weapon spends the rest of its life dying from radiation sickness and infertility.

Added to that that these weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of civilians... Frankly, I don't see why they are allowed to exist.

Could someone please explain what the point of Nuclear weapons are, and why we need them?

Just to clarify, I am not some sort of 'no weapons or war should be ever allowed ever' hippy, I appreciate the fact that sometimes war is nescasarry and I believe that if a war is initiated, we should try our damndest to win. This does not in my eyes however, justify the deliberate killing of large numbers of civilians. Peace, yes, but not peace at all costs: after all, is not a bad peace even worse than war?

Thanks

Heres the thing.

If we divert all the money to a defense system the enemy can keep launching away with little fear of retaliation and eventually could probably succeed in getting one through.

If we have the option and they know we have the option, they know we can retaliate with the same amount of force.

They were already developed and already exist, unfortunately we cant just uninvent them

So you actually have a point to make Frazzie?

Questioning the nuclear deterent an d arguiing for and against has a lot of merit.

Personally I think the deterent should be restricted further, with a severe treaty cap on yield and number of warheads. An effectgive deterent need only punish an agressive regime, ansd need not amount to genocide.

Also something needs to be done about unstable nations with nuclear programs, including but not limited to Iran and North Korea but also in the same breath placing restrictions on Israel too.

If anyone is likely to start throwing nukes I think the Israelis pretty much top the list.

Haha, for a minute there I thought that would be a rationally explained answer to my question Fraz.

Instead, its godzilla facepalming me... win.

Has my question already been answered by the poster above you, or is there something you could extrapolate on instead of posting an amusing demotivational picture, the sole design of which is to ridicule me for my views?

The answer is people can't get along ever. Missiles make people get along..

At least OP, when the end comes it'll be like fallout IRL. Start saving those bottle caps.

'Nuclear' bombs are quintessential for FREEDOM!

Tilean Bastard wrote:'Nuclear' bombs are quintessential for FREEDOM!

Wow really? I did not know that, but back on topic. No its no need for Nuclear weapons today. What would you use them for anyways? Killing civilians in the million in a nuclear strike? They should all be dismantled and disposed of.

Wait Godzilla facepalm came through? Its not showing on mine.
Excellent.

Nukes keep the Indians and Pakistanis from war, and protects us from the harrowing menace that is Leichtenstein.

This thread never had a chance....

No matter how much money is invested into a system 100% success for that system is impossible to guarantee. Let's not forget the scale of the weapons we're talking about here. One missile gets through and millions could die depending on the missile's target. The policy of Mutual Assured Destruction has been, and IMHO will continue to be, a much better way of staying safe from nuclear weapons.

For those who subscribe to the school of thought that a nuclear weapon used by terrorists can not be tied to a government and thusly there is no target for a return attack, I say this:
I doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where these groups originate. Certain governments sponsor or harbor these groups. That's a good enough return address for me.

Frazzled wrote:Wait Godzilla facepalm came through? Its not showing on mine.
Excellent.

It did indeed.

So basically what everyone is saying is that Nuclear weapons are needed because they keep everyone in line due to fear. We can't get rid of them because then the ones to get rid of them last would have a huge advantage. They're also useful for fething up the other guys gak in the event of a Nuclear apocalypse.

Even though when some maniac eventually lets one off the chain the entire world will go to hell in a handbasket in a matter of seconds? Why take this sort of risk? I admit its an achievement of sorts that society has reached the stage where it can destroy itself in a matter of minutes but is that really something to be proud of?

If someone's selfish and crazy enough to blow up a continent and wreck the world, I don't think the threat of killing their population will do much, not when they have there own personal bunker and half their populace is malnourished and dying anyway... It's only a deterrant to people who actually care about their people: If they don't (and bear in mind the sort of people who would want to kill another country probably won't) they would press the button without a moments hesistation.

Dastardly Dave wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait Godzilla facepalm came through? Its not showing on mine.
Excellent.

It did indeed.

So basically what everyone is saying is that Nuclear weapons are needed because they keep everyone in line due to fear. We can't get rid of them because then the ones to get rid of them last would have a huge advantage. They're also useful for fething up the other guys gak in the event of a Nuclear apocalypse.

Even though when some maniac eventually lets one off the chain the entire world will go to hell in a handbasket in a matter of seconds? Why take this sort of risk? I admit its an achievement of sorts that society has reached the stage where it can destroy itself in a matter of minutes but is that really something to be proud of?

If someone's selfish and crazy enough to blow up a continent and wreck the world, I don't think the threat of killing their population will do much, not when they have there own personal bunker and half their populace is malnourished and dying anyway... It's only a deterrant to people who actually care about their people: If they don't (and bear in mind the sort of people who would want to kill another country probably won't) they would press the button without a moments hesistation.

Because there are people out there who are crazy to blow up the world...

The problem? They are normally narcissist, and care to much about staying alive then world domination. So in theory, it works.

Dastardly Dave wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait Godzilla facepalm came through? Its not showing on mine.
Excellent.

It did indeed.

So basically what everyone is saying is that Nuclear weapons are needed because they keep everyone in line due to fear. We can't get rid of them because then the ones to get rid of them last would have a huge advantage. They're also useful for fething up the other guys gak in the event of a Nuclear apocalypse.

Even though when some maniac eventually lets one off the chain the entire world will go to hell in a handbasket in a matter of seconds? Why take this sort of risk? I admit its an achievement of sorts that society has reached the stage where it can destroy itself in a matter of minutes but is that really something to be proud of?

If someone's selfish and crazy enough to blow up a continent and wreck the world, I don't think the threat of killing their population will do much, not when they have there own personal bunker and half their populace is malnourished and dying anyway... It's only a deterrant to people who actually care about their people: If they don't (and bear in mind the sort of people who would want to kill another country probably won't) they would press the button without a moments hesistation.

How long they gonna hang out in there bunker.. a really really long time. This nuke stuff takes forever to go away. You drop the bomb expect to die now or later in a bunker.

Also touchy feely humanity is a recent invention. It also only really works with small communities.

Also why take this risk? Because the other guy will.


EDIT I understand what you are getting at but currently its not realistic.

I think they are just about useless now, unless the thought of radiation baths appeal to people. I mean we are creating more and more powerful bombs that already past the destructive power of the Hiroshima bombs we dropped. I cant remember the country, but some one made a F.O.A.B (no, not the moab) which has the same concussive blast as a nuke.

So if we get the same punch, without all the lovely extra limbs growing and eternal night light syndrome, then I think we wont have a use for nukes. They are too much of a pain to keep maintained as well as the fun they cause when we set them off.

Thats my 2 cents

Well, I am of the firm belief that atomic weapons still hold a valuable deterrent for those who wish to harm us. If Israel ever wanted to say it had or didn't have nukes, it would change the scope of their relationship with its Islamic neighbors. The fact they could or could not have those bombs, and keep it an open secret about their ambiguity, I think helps them today keep enemies banging down their conventional door.

The cash could be better spent on feeding and clothing people and exploring space, but unfortunately my cyrstal ball says "no" to that happening anytime soon.

If it wasn't for nuclear weapons, the world would probably be in a state of perpetual world-war at the moment. Think of all the countries who are at each others throats - without the threat of nuclear destruction Israel would probably not exist (I have my own personal views on this), the indian subcontinent would be in flames, Korea, Russia, China... the list goes on.

I think opposition to nuclear deterrent is naive.

Khornholio wrote:The cash could be better spent on feeding and clothing people and exploring space, but unfortunately my cyrstal ball says "no" to that happening anytime soon.

The space money could also be good for ending the housing crisis and financial insolvency of nations.

But meh. So long as independent nation states exist that are not of the same origin, background, and other things related to identity, nukes are a good deterrent.

The nuclear deterant has worked better than anyone could possibly have imagined, and one hasnt been dropped on anyone since WW2.

The idea that we can get rid of ours is sadly, ridiculous.

But greenpeace activists and hippies are idealists, who think that if we make the first move, everyone will just "get along" so they will always think its a good idea.

It isnt.

mattyrm wrote:The nuclear deterant has worked better than anyone could possibly have imagined, and one hasnt been dropped on anyone since WW2.

Do we discount all the peacetime bomb drops to test how things get vaporized and the push the limits of making things not exist anymore?

Yes mate we do.

WarOne wrote:

mattyrm wrote:The nuclear deterant has worked better than anyone could possibly have imagined, and one hasnt been dropped on anyone since WW2.

Do we discount all the peacetime bomb drops to test how things get vaporized and the push the limits of making things not exist anymore?

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

mattyrm wrote:The nuclear deterant has worked better than anyone could possibly have imagined, and one hasnt been dropped on anyone since WW2.

Do we discount all the peacetime bomb drops to test how things get vaporized and the push the limits of making things not exist anymore?

Okay...let us make Frazzled understand nuclear deterrence with this picture here:



The dog is an enemy looking to attack you. That giant crab claw is the nuclear deterrent. So long as the dog knows the bomb is there, it won't attack. If it does, well imagine what the claw will do to the dog.

Khornholio wrote:The cash could be better spent on feeding and clothing people and exploring space, but unfortunately my cyrstal ball says "no" to that happening anytime soon.

OR instead of giving those tax dollars away to people... They could you know, just lower the taxes of the people paying them!

The Father Of All Bombs (FOAB) is Russian built and is a little scary for what it does. Proof that the US shouldn't have abandoned the Thermobarbaric arms race as soon as it did.




P.S.
And just like anything else the Russians make, you will soon be able to find these for sale to anyone who can afford it.

Frazzled wrote:
Nukes keep the Indians and Pakistanis from war, and protects us from the harrowing menace that is Leichtenstein.

While I am breaking my own rules by using comedy to make a political point I find this better described the 'volatility' of Indian/Pakistani relations.

http://www.theonion.com/video/volatile-indiapakistan-standoff-enters-11680th-day,14248/

Jokes aside India and Pakistan do occassionally shell each other, and are by no means freindly but when one had nukes the other got them its about one upmanship, and the Pakistani bomb is permitted on those grounds. Both nations have only a token deterent, its possible the Pakistani deterent may be phantom. Either way nooone expects them to be used, neither does anyone expect tanks to roll.

Need? Maybe not. Want? Absolutely! We wouldn't have sweet movies like Red Dawn w/o them. WOLVERIIIIIIINES!

Ahtman wrote:Need? Maybe not. Want? Absolutely! We wouldn't have sweet movies like Red Dawn w/o them. WOLVERIIIIIIINES!

All the tech trees I'm familiar with have nuclear warheads available before the shield defenses.