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.

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

Dastardly Dave wrote:
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.

Well, their personal bunker still needs food, power, and other services that the dictator in question probably enjoys. There's a whole lot of infrastructure that supports gratuitous individual possession.

The thing you've got to remember is that nuclear weapons were designed with three purposes in mind:

1.) to stamp out a hedgehog defense (the thing that beat the blitzkreig)

2.) to very quickly destroy an enemy industrial base.

3.) to be scary.

The first has been made moot by the fact that we can now basically air-drop whole armies if we want to, and that everybody and their mother is mechanized. The second is made moot by the fact that nuclear weapons destroy industry, and the western world has already gotten rid of its industry (it's all globalized away, now).

As such, there is no real use to nuclear weapons except that they're scary. Once people stop being afraid of them (like everybody has a competent anti-missile system), then nuclear weapons will be literally worthless.

It's telling that none of the big nuclear-armed countries have done really any nuclear weapons research in like 40 years.

jp400 wrote: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.

*snaps fingers*

That was it. Thanks man

Seriously, that is one bad bitch if you ask me. And I agree with you, once Al Qaeda can afford one, someone is going to be feeling just what that puppy was made for

Ailaros wrote:As such, there is no real use to nuclear weapons except that they're scary. Once people stop being afraid of them (like everybody has a competent anti-missile system), then nuclear weapons will be literally worthless.

It's telling that none of the big nuclear-armed countries have done really any nuclear weapons research in like 40 years.

They haven't done any real nuclear weapons research in like 40 years because as of right now there isn't a need to do so. If they want to drop a nuke, nobody can stop them from doing so with technology.

As soon as that changes, or looks like changing, they'll do more research.

There are a huge crapton of problems with nukes besides the fact that they kill people.
Mainly these come to mind.
1. I have been told by someone who knows their stuff that it takes 3(!) nukes to send the world into a nuclear winter.
2. The nukes these days are 10x more powerful than the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs
3. The reason we have literally thousands of nukes is basically the concept of mutually assured destruction.
None of these make nukes a very safe option for ANYTHING.

Nukes do one thing well. They absolutely will take out the leadership of a country. It may take a few nukes but they will get the job done when nothing else will.

Politicans do not care if soldiers die, look at the current "war" if you doubt that. It took less time to fight WWII.

Politicans DO care if they die. Nukes keep politicans in check.

If all the politicans and generals on both sides right at the beginning of a war got put in the dead pile I am betting most wars would end a lot quicker and the next war would not be launched as quickly.

Wars are started by powerful old men who are safe and kill young men who are not. Without a draft wars kill poor young men. Real drafts like the one in WWII keep politicans honest.

“The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.” John Arbuthnot Fisher

they take out political leaders... unless they're in bunkers.

Remember, nuclear weapons are only effective against surface targets. You can make them "bunker buster" if you like, but that DRASTICALLY reduces the radius of the weapon (the reason nuclear weapons can only be tested underground is because it's the "safest" option).

Nuclear weapons are only tactically useful against tightly clustered targets, like troops in a hedgehog or industry in the middle of a city. Without these, the only thing that a nuclear weapon is good for is killing people. If sheer body count were all it took to win a war than the US would have been in and out of Vietnam and Afghanistan in a few months, rather than the years and years of protracted fighting. Obviously killing the enemy helps, but it is far from end-all-be-all. Not only is there already dubious strategic gain, but it would probably be overall WORSE for the nuking country, as every other country is going to revile them. Why risk the entire rest of the world going to war against you for using nukes when the nukes themselves provide little strategic value?

As such, once effective countermeasures are put in place, I don't see anyone putting a serious effort to counteract the countermeasures. Why spend billions of dollars just to help a strategically useless weapon get to its target so that everyone else will treat you like a monster?

As for nuclear winter, you need more like 50 bombs to affect things for a decade. Big whoop. Nuclear winter fears are always grossly exaggerated by people who have something to gain by nuclear weapons being scary.

Albatross wrote: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.

Win

mattyrm wrote: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.

More hilarious win. I owe both of y'all a pint next time I am in HM blessed realm.

Frazzled wrote:Nukes keep the Indians and Pakistanis from war

No, it really, really doesn't. They've escalated to near war on a number of occasions.


People have this really simple, easy view of nuclear war, where people get to make a clear decision to blow the other guy up. The other guy has this nice, clear idea of the other guy's nuclear capacity and so no-one ever tries anything. It's a crazy notion.

Nations rarely decide to go to war, they fall into them after extended periods of brinkmanship. Look at the Pakistan - India war of 1971, Indian sponsorship of insurgents in East Pakistan led to violent reprisals against the insurgents, leading to a refugee crisis and eventually an armed response by the Indians.

At what point in that situation does someone choose to push the button? At what point is it clear the next step will result in the other guy pushing the button, thereby stopping him from escalating?

Nuclear weapons as a deterrant is a bit of a nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote: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.

Umm, no, Israel had nuclear weapons from 1967. They were invaded six years later in the Yom Kippur war.

Also, there is no conventional attack on Israel possible in the modern world as no Arab state has the political, economic and military strength to allow attack. And around half the countries in the region are tightly tied to the US. The myth of the wolves at the door of Israel really needs to die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote: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.

Ah, all this time I've been trying to figure you out and I finally get it. You think we're all living in a Tom Clancy novel.

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote: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.

Umm, no, Israel had nuclear weapons from 1967. They were invaded six years later in the Yom Kippur war.

Also, there is no conventional attack on Israel possible in the modern world as no Arab state has the political, economic and military strength to allow attack. And around half the countries in the region are tightly tied to the US. The myth of the wolves at the door of Israel really needs to die.

Israel neither confirms nor denies their nuclear weapons. Independent weapon experts and national and international organizations place Israel on the list of nations who have nuclear weapons. Let us get that straight. I said open secret. The fact they have not used them simply means that: they have not used them.

Israel was not pressed far enough to actually use that option. It is the doomsday scenario for them if their country is actually pushed to the brink...well more like pushed into the ocean. They did not use it then because it didn't get that far.

Israel will continue their stance against its neighbors simply because they do not have the convenience of two oceans, two relatively stable border nations, the natural resources and political clout, or the relative social and economic peace America enjoys. We also do not have their history either.

As for other nations not being able to harm Israel...this is true. Most of the Middle East is locked in a battle for their social souls as society and liberals have changed the landscape of nations like Iran who could pose a threat to Israel but cannot at this time.

While many nations enjoy ties to the U.S., I would think many would also sweep the rug out from under the United States again if it meant solidarity with their neighbors if Israel ever had open and active support from the United States in defense of its existance.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Albatross wrote: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.

Win

mattyrm wrote: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.

More hilarious win. I owe both of y'all a pint next time I am in HM blessed realm.

I personally think the UK should replace it's nuclear deterrent with a giant CCTV camera.






Like, a REALLY, REALLY big one.

I'm in favour of delaying the replacement of ours until the replacement is needed. I'm not in favour of removing them.

George Spiggott wrote:I'm in favour of delaying the replacement of ours until the replacement is needed. I'm not in favour of removing them.

Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm at. We have more pressing problems to deal with.

We could do so much more with money that goes to nuclear weapons. We can plant some trees to keep global warming at bay.

Global warming is much more pressing than nuclear weapons.

WarOne wrote:We could do so much more with money that goes to nuclear weapons. We can plant some trees to keep global warming at bay.

Global warming is much more pressing than nuclear weapons.

And we can all sit around a campfire and sing koombayah and everyone will live in peace and harmony just like they did in 1938.

I think the OP has a point. Unlike some, I would argue that MAD was an unfortunate reality of the cold war, and that for either the US or the USSR to reduce its first strike capability could have opened the door for the other to strike. However, today, I'm not sure that applies. India and Pakistan, perhaps, but I really don't know enough about their politics to say. China may not be as reluctant to follow the idea of MAD, and North Korea less so if they thought they could get away with it. Non state entities may have no compunction at all about being nuked back, assuming you could target them in the first place.

I think, and I know this is a radical viewpoint a la Dr. Strangelove, now that the cold war is over we should look into the practicality of nuclear devices for peaceful purposes. It was thought about, but in a much more paranoid time. Very clean nuclear devices could be used for massive blasting projects, and the idea of using nuclear pulse detonation for spacecraft propulsion had been hypothesized.

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:We could do so much more with money that goes to nuclear weapons. We can plant some trees to keep global warming at bay.

Global warming is much more pressing than nuclear weapons.

And we can all sit around a campfire and sing koombayah and everyone will live in peace and harmony just like they did in 1938.

But when the global warmings attack your campfire, most of you will be devoured. At the very least the trees I will be planting will form a natural barrier against the predatory nature of the global warming packs that rove the earth looking for polluters to devour.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:We could do so much more with money that goes to nuclear weapons. We can plant some trees to keep global warming at bay.

Global warming is much more pressing than nuclear weapons.

And we can all sit around a campfire and sing koombayah and everyone will live in peace and harmony just like they did in 1938.

But when the global warmings attack your campfire, most of you will be devoured. At the very least the trees I will be planting will form a natural barrier against the predatory nature of the global warming packs that rove the earth looking for polluters to devour.

Well played sir.

WarOne wrote:We could do so much more with money that goes to nuclear weapons. We can plant some trees to keep global warming at bay.

Global warming is much more pressing than nuclear WINTER.

Fixed

egor71 wrote:

WarOne wrote:We could do so much more with money that goes to nuclear weapons. We can plant some trees to keep global warming at bay.

Global warming is much more warming than nuclear WINTER.

Fixed

Superfixed.

I'm happy not to have them as soon as the rest of the loony countries just throw all of theirs away.. Hah ohhhh wait! They won't. And we can't force them.

But at the end of the day, I struggle to see how any argument *for* Nuclear Weapons can work, apart from when somebody else already has them.

sA

I believe the old saying goes.

"Peace through Superior Firepower"

Nukes are like condoms. I'd rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:There are a huge crapton of problems with nukes besides the fact that they kill people.
Mainly these come to mind.
1. I have been told by someone who knows their stuff that it takes 3(!) nukes to send the world into a nuclear winter.
2. The nukes these days are 10x more powerful than the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs
3. The reason we have literally thousands of nukes is basically the concept of mutually assured destruction.
None of these make nukes a very safe option for ANYTHING.

Ok sorry this is bull.

1. Totally untrue it takes lots of nukes, most nuclear radiation will be gone in six weeks. Also we dropped way more than three nukes in airborne tests, including Tzar Bomba which has enough firepower for at least three normal nukes on its own.

2. And the rest. The biggest tested was Tzar Bomba at 50 Megatons. Most strategic nukes are of the 500 Kiloton to 2 Megaton range.

3. Thousands of nukes are 'needed' for multiple redundancy and to assure you can do the job with a second strike.


Now you got one bit partly right but likely for the wrong reasons.

1. I have been told by someone who knows their stuff that it takes 3(!) nukes to send the world into a nuclear winter.

What you do is uncap large nuclear reactors, cause core exposures exheeding that of Chernobyl several times over. You wont cause a nuclear winter but you will horribly irradiate the planet. Uncapped reactors is the single biggest long term worry risk, for more than warhead yields themselves account for. Uncap three major reactors over the world and the planet is pretty much fethed.

WarOne wrote:Most of the Middle East is locked in a battle for their social souls as society and liberals have changed the landscape of nations like Iran who could pose a threat to Israel but cannot at this time.

Even under ideal conditions, Iran is not a conventional threat to Israel, not in the sense where threat indicates that the Iranians are likely to defeat Israel in an open conflict. The Iranian Air Force is impotent in comparison, and its ground forces would be forced to drive through Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Even before the US occupation this meant doing battle with Saddam before ever even reaching the, far superior, Israeli Army; likely while being hammered by Israeli and US air strikes all the way in.

Yes,yes we do in all honesty there are nukes out their in the real world that if they go of the earth go boom also in my absolute and utter pure 14 year old opinion nukes are in fact the only detterant we have there are nukes surrounding the earth that are set as a chain if the worst was to happen like a huge soler flare reached earth or was close to the agreement of most countries in detonate every single nuke kill every body instantly that is a fact if we just removed every nuke and replaced it with some anti nuke device there are so many at least one would get through.

foor301 wrote:Yes,yes we do in all honesty there are nukes out their in the real world that if they go of the earth go boom also in my absolute and utter pure 14 year old opinion nukes are in fact the only detterant we have there are nukes surrounding the earth that are set as a chain if the worst was to happen like a huge soler flare reached earth or was close to the agreement of most countries in detonate every single nuke kill every body instantly that is a fact if we just removed every nuke and replaced it with some anti nuke device there are so many at least one would get through.

That post's a winner right there.

...

That sniper is disturbing... the bullets are probably pink as well. I honestly can't think of a less manly way to die.

Looking over various posts, and after doing a bit of research on the interwebs, I have grudgingly come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons and a nuclear deterrant are a necassary evil because everyone is too stubborn to get along properly. They are certainately not desirable but they are necassary to keep the Nuclear Noobs in check through the theory of Mutually Assured destruction. I have also got the impression that the general consensus is that Nuclear Weapons will never be used. Worryingly this immediately makes me think of Boromir and the One Ring...

I will say though, that I never advocated an instant nuclear disarmament: clearly if we drop ours other countries won't start playing happy treehouse friends and chuck their weapons into the proverbial nuclear waste recycling bin.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but international politics in terms of war and peace seems highly immature. This is kicking over an ant hill and is intended to be rhetorical: "why can't everyone just sort it out over a drink?"
Clearly this is never going to happen. It's all highly demotivating.

Ah well. I guess you can't have everything. The question still stands though, if a little changed: Will there ever be a point where Nuclear Weapons become truly unnecassary, or will the Nuclear stalemate continue forever with countries developing more and more advanced weapons 'just in case'?

Now, if we really want to make things interesting, we should start discussing whether or not universal nuclear armament will lead to a sort Pax Atomos.

foor301 wrote:Yes,yes we do in all honesty there are nukes out their in the real world that if they go of the earth go boom also in my absolute and utter pure 14 year old opinion nukes are in fact the only detterant we have there are nukes surrounding the earth that are set as a chain if the worst was to happen like a huge soler flare reached earth or was close to the agreement of most countries in detonate every single nuke kill every body instantly that is a fact if we just removed every nuke and replaced it with some anti nuke device there are so many at least one would get through.

I love the fact that there is a comma right at the start of that post, then NO punctuation for the rest of it until the end!


@Dogma - No, I don't think so. Do you really want Somalia or Sierra Leone to get nukes?