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.

Not especially, though the idea of nuclear peace isn't mine. I do think that the security risk of nuclear proliferation is largely overstated. It is true that, as the number of nuclear states grows, the possession of nuclear weapons begins to diminish in significance with respect to power. However, not possessing power is not the same thing as not possessing security.

dogma wrote:Not especially, though the idea of nuclear peace isn't mine. I do think that the security risk of nuclear proliferation is largely overstated. It is true that, as the number of nuclear states grows, the possession of nuclear weapons begins to diminish in significance with respect to power. However, not possessing power is not the same thing as not possessing security.

Well, depends on which country you're talking about! *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*

A useful precedent for consideration as an analogue for 'nuclear peace' could be Britain's invention of the 'Dreadnought' class battleship, a ship which was several orders of magnitude more powerful than the most powerful ship of the time. It was a huge leap forward in maritime engineering and made every other battleship on earth obsolete instantly. The Royal Navy was already massively more powerful than it's nearest rivals put together, but the Dreadnought was a game-changer. It left Britain's enemies and rivals literally defenceless in terms of naval might. Other countries, and Germany in particular, decided they had to come up with their own Dreadnoughts in order to safeguard their nations from a foreign force that could now crush them on a whim as far as sea power was concerned. This began an arms race - which Britain actually won, at a cost. That cost being, ultimately, two world wars and the loss of an empire.

I think the nuclear arms race, in terms of the world as a whole, is largely over. We may see regional races to acquire nuclear technology, but they will not approach the scale of the competition between the US and the USSR. And, given the ability of the current nuclear powers to intervene in such a way as to prevent an active exchange, likely to be far less dangerous in a conventional sense; ie. missiles flying to their respective targets.

I think the best candidates for future arms races (of a global sort) are cyberwar systems, ABM technology, and space militarization; most likely in that temporal order.

What I meant is, everyone having Dreadnoughts didn't make the world a safer place - it plunged the world into a series of unprecedented conflicts. I think it would be a similar situation if all nations had nuclear weapons - it would only take one maniac to use one on a neighbour and that would be that. Endwar.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

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.

You're right on most of this, except that Fusion bombs are much more powerful than Fission bombs. An H-Bomb is something like 100x more powerful than a Fission bomb.

I think the first country to get the Neutron Bomb will dominate. The ability to cause massive casualties without much physical damage is very scary.

Albatross wrote:What I meant is, everyone having Dreadnoughts didn't make the world a safer place - it plunged the world into a series of unprecedented conflicts. I think it would be a similar situation if all nations had nuclear weapons - it would only take one maniac to use one on a neighbour and that would be that. Endwar.

Yes, that currently appears to be the dominant opinion. The position I outlined in my initial question is essentially the classical neo-realist stance, as first articulated by Kenneth Waltz. Another option is selective proliferation, which has been advocated by John Mearsheimer, and represents the de facto position amongst American foreign policy thinkers.

For my part, I think its a mistake to actively provide, or permit the provision of, nuclear weapons to any state; allied or not. However, political reality often means that withheld permission may have to be replaced with tacit acceptance. I don't take this stance out of concern for global destruction, but out of concern for American power; though postponing a nuclear detonation is certainly a desirable side effect.

WarOne wrote: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.

Sure, Israel neither confirms nor denies they have the bomb but we all know they have it. At which point the ‘open secret’ is basically irrelevant and we can treat them as another nuclear power. At which point the idea that nuclear weapons make you immune to invasion becomes false, because Israel had the bomb, was invaded, and didn’t launch despite some disastrous early days.

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.

Sure, Israel shouldn’t push their tanks into the ocean and declare peace forever. But that isn’t the game being played. They are the dominant power in the region, and have normalised relations with most Arab countries. They do not suffer any realistic threat of extinction, but people will pretend they do in order to justify their more odious policies, particularly towards Palestine.

Frazzled wrote: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.

Yes, we should keep spending billions on maintaining a highly politicised defence system with a highly doubtful application in the modern world, and ignore any arguments that the money could be better spent on defence systems that meet actual threats in the real world.

Your plan worked awesomely for France’s Maginot Line, afterall.

dogma wrote:I think the nuclear arms race, in terms of the world as a whole, is largely over. We may see regional races to acquire nuclear technology, but they will not approach the scale of the competition between the US and the USSR. And, given the ability of the current nuclear powers to intervene in such a way as to prevent an active exchange, likely to be far less dangerous in a conventional sense; ie. missiles flying to their respective targets.

I think the best candidates for future arms races (of a global sort) are cyberwar systems, ABM technology, and space militarization; most likely in that temporal order.

That was probably the status quo, until the US advanced the ballistic shield, resulting in a likely scenario where the US was (possibly) safe from incoming missiles, but still capable of launching it’s own. The likely result is a new arms race, as other nations seek to develop their own shield or just build enough bombs so that they can overwhelm the US defence network.

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote: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.

Sure, Israel neither confirms nor denies they have the bomb but we all know they have it. At which point the ‘open secret’ is basically irrelevant and we can treat them as another nuclear power. At which point the idea that nuclear weapons make you immune to invasion becomes false, because Israel had the bomb, was invaded, and didn’t launch despite some disastrous early days.

And to be fair, the last major joint offensive against Israel backed by Syria and Egypt (the Yom Kippur war) had limited aims to begin with. They sought to redress the loss of territory and prestige after a thumping the Israelis gave them. It was not a total war to which Israel would of launched nukes, but at that point the intelligence agency and anyone with an inkling for Israel's nuclear capabilities would of seen that all out war with Israel would be suicide. Israel was not in terrible danger at the end of the war, but in the beginning it could of gotten alot worse.

WarOne wrote:And to be fair, the last major joint offensive against Israel backed by Syria and Egypt (the Yom Kippur war) had limited aims to begin with. They sought to redress the loss of territory and prestige after a thumping the Israelis gave them. It was not a total war to which Israel would of launched nukes, but at that point the intelligence agency and anyone with an inkling for Israel's nuclear capabilities would of seen that all out war with Israel would be suicide. Israel was not in terrible danger at the end of the war, but in the beginning it could of gotten alot worse.

True, the war was limited in scope and quite foolish in general, but in the first couple of days when things were going quite poorly for the Israelis, were they to know that?

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:What I meant is, everyone having Dreadnoughts didn't make the world a safer place - it plunged the world into a series of unprecedented conflicts. I think it would be a similar situation if all nations had nuclear weapons - it would only take one maniac to use one on a neighbour and that would be that. Endwar.

Yes, that currently appears to be the dominant opinion. The position I outlined in my initial question is essentially the classical neo-realist stance, as first articulated by Kenneth Waltz. Another option is selective proliferation, which has been advocated by John Mearsheimer, and represents the de facto position amongst American foreign policy thinkers.

For my part, I think its a mistake to actively provide, or permit the provision of, nuclear weapons to any state; allied or not. However, political reality often means that withheld permission may have to be replaced with tacit acceptance. I don't take this stance out of concern for global destruction, but out of concern for American power; though postponing a nuclear detonation is certainly a desirable side effect.

Well, Germany was a long-time ally of the British Empire - our monarchs were related, and relations were beyond cordial. That didn't stop them getting nervous when Britain became all-powerful on the high seas. I think it would have benefited us to share the power out a bit, so that the Empire wouldn't have been the sole focus of fear and envy. Those emotions do weird things to governments.
That's why I think it benefits the US to have nuclear-armed allies.

dogma wrote:Not especially, though the idea of nuclear peace isn't mine. I do think that the security risk of nuclear proliferation is largely overstated. It is true that, as the number of nuclear states grows, the possession of nuclear weapons begins to diminish in significance with respect to power. However, not possessing power is not the same thing as not possessing security.

I don't seem to be frighted about being nuked constantly and think that nuclear disarmament is as much to wear your politics on your sleeve, so to speak, than anything else.

Of course, I'll won't have long enough to know that I was wrong if someone detonates a nuclear device nearby.

I think the fear level is nothing like my parents had growing up. I can't imagine what living under the shadow of something like the cuban missile crisis was like. I believe that is one of the big things that shaped that generation.

I would agree that in the Cold War era the nukes worked as a deterrent, none of us wanted to unleash them because of the response back. The governments knew it would cost the lives of millions of citizens.

That was then, this is now.

Countries like Iran & North Korea don't care about their about their citizens, so the fact that we can hit them back wouldn't matter to them. Iran would say it's Allah's will and that they are all off to Paradise and the leaders of North Korea would be in bunkers or scamper off to China. To be honest I think Korea won't really do it either, which just leaves Iran and such like regimes. They won't care for one moment about a strike-back, so having a 100 warheads won't scare them at all.

Even if your country was invaded, would you really want to drop Nukes? What would be left that would be worth having? At least with a none Nuke way, if you put up resistance and fought back, you'd having something worth getting back. I think you will find that our leaders have always known that if a nuclear war kicked off, that would be it.

Wolfstan wrote:I would agree that in the Cold War era the nukes worked as a deterrent, none of us wanted to unleash them because of the response back. The governments knew it would cost the lives of millions of citizens.

That was then, this is now.

Countries like Iran & North Korea don't care about their about their citizens, so the fact that we can hit them back wouldn't matter to them. Iran would say it's Allah's will and that they are all off to Paradise and the leaders of North Korea would be in bunkers or scamper off to China. To be honest I think Korea won't really do it either, which just leaves Iran and such like regimes. They won't care for one moment about a strike-back, so having a 100 warheads won't scare them at all.

Even if your country was invaded, would you really want to drop Nukes? What would be left that would be worth having? At least with a none Nuke way, if you put up resistance and fought back, you'd having something worth getting back. I think you will find that our leaders have always known that if a nuclear war kicked off, that would be it.

I think smaller yield weapons could be used in such a scenario, but that is beside the point. I really don't think Iran would do that either, but I was more worried about non state entities.

sebster wrote:
That was probably the status quo, until the US advanced the ballistic shield, resulting in a likely scenario where the US was (possibly) safe from incoming missiles, but still capable of launching it’s own. The likely result is a new arms race, as other nations seek to develop their own shield or just build enough bombs so that they can overwhelm the US defence network.

Sure, in the event that any given nation believes its subject to the ire of the US that's certainly true. However, its worth noting that China's nuclear stockpile is estimated to be very small, and it doesn't appear as though they're intent on spending a ton of money in order to catch up to the US stockpile. At the moment it appears as though, while the number of nuclear states is likely to increase, the sizes of the nuclear stockpiles possessed by those states are likely to decrease.

Of course, the last time we had this sort of military parity was before WWI, and the resultant network of alliances lead to a runaway mobilization schedule that drew Europe into a massive war. That doesn't mean we're at greater risk of a nuclear holocaust, as things like ABM technology and asymmetric systems threats (cyber-warfare) will factor into the desire to utilize nuclear weaponry; ABM technology, in particular, benefits from a reduction in the number of possible intercept targets along any one vector. Additionally, not being reliant on the sort of technology that was available at the turn of the century, the kind of collision course commitment scenario which defined the pre-war period is unlikely to be drawn up.

Really the greatest risk is that, given the speed of modern warfare, a nation will suddenly find itself pushed to the brink; leading to an immediate launch. In that respect it seems the greatest threat in terms of nuclear usage is North Korea, followed closely by Israel and Iran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
Well, Germany was a long-time ally of the British Empire - our monarchs were related, and relations were beyond cordial. That didn't stop them getting nervous when Britain became all-powerful on the high seas. I think it would have benefited us to share the power out a bit, so that the Empire wouldn't have been the sole focus of fear and envy. Those emotions do weird things to governments.
That's why I think it benefits the US to have nuclear-armed allies.

The difference is that nuclear weapons don't shield an economic engine in the same way that the British navy did. The British navy didn't just protect the empire, it made it possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:
I don't seem to be frighted about being nuked constantly and think that nuclear disarmament is as much to wear your politics on your sleeve, so to speak, than anything else.

Its also, thus far, the most effective line of rhetoric with respect to military reductions that has yet been found, and probably the only one with anything close to a bi-partisan character.

Any thoughts about the use of nuclear detonations for peaceful purposes?

nuclear bombs=DAKKADAKKA!!!!

Grignard wrote:Any thoughts about the use of nuclear detonations for peaceful purposes?

For what purpose?

Skarwael wrote:

Grignard wrote:Any thoughts about the use of nuclear detonations for peaceful purposes?

For what purpose?

Back in the 60s there were proposals for using nuclear devices in large scale earth moving projects, and the idea of using nuclear devices in pulses was proposed as a means of spacecraft propulsion.

I'm not saying it is practical or a good idea, but the concept has been tossed around.

Grignard wrote:Any thoughts about the use of nuclear detonations for peaceful purposes?

I have no problem with it at all. In fact, I'm of the opinion that a low yield, high efficiency warhead would be the ideal way to eventually seal the Deepwater Horizon leak.

Honestly, I think a lot of the fear with respect to nuclear technology in general, and nuclear weapons in particular, is the result of latent Cold War biases and a nominal lack of information. Yes, nuclear weapons are powerful, but they aren't going to crack the planet in half, or turn us all into horrible mutants, not even cancer patients. When treated with caution and respect, well-designed warheads are not especially different from any other explosive device.

That said, I know just enough physics to run my own nuclear damage projections, and work with them fairly often. So I may also simply be desensitized to the risks involved.