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'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/28/un-votes-to-start-negotiating-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons

What do people think? They've gotten far too big and are clearly a waste of resources; no sane person is going to use them, and the consequences of doing so are unthinkable now that Russia has announced the Satan 2.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/28/un-votes-to-start-negotiating-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons

What do people think? They've gotten far too big and are clearly a waste of resources; no sane person is going to use them, and the consequences of doing so are unthinkable now that Russia has announced the Satan 2.

Useless exercise as the US/RU/China/et. el. would veto it.

Probably because it's pointless. It can be hard to get something through the General Assembly when 1 permanent member of the security council doesn't want it. All five?

You might as well get to work on a hybrid swine capable of natural flight... oh! Or a swine cannon! That'll make those piggies fly

Not to quibble over the point but the prospect of nuclear war being prohibitively destructive is not a recent development by any stretch, certainly not as blisteringly recent as the Satan 2.

There is still no possible first strike scenario against the US or Russia that would leave them incapable of launching enough nukes to sterilize the planet.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Not to quibble over the point but the prospect of nuclear war being prohibitively destructive is not a recent development by any stretch, certainly not as blisteringly recent as the Satan 2.

There is still no possible first strike scenario against the US or Russia that would leave them incapable of launching enough nukes to sterilize the planet.

Heh... not enough nukes to sterilize the planet.

Humanity fethed over? Yeah... but, we'd still be around.

Agree on the idea.

Too bad has pretty close zero chance of happening for now. Time will come but not yet.

 whembly wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Not to quibble over the point but the prospect of nuclear war being prohibitively destructive is not a recent development by any stretch, certainly not as blisteringly recent as the Satan 2.

There is still no possible first strike scenario against the US or Russia that would leave them incapable of launching enough nukes to sterilize the planet.

Heh... not enough nukes to sterilize the planet.

Humanity fethed over? Yeah... but, we'd still be around.

Nuclear winter would ensure that wouldn't be for long.

This debate's been had pretty strongly over the last few years in the Uk, what with the renewal of Trident and Jeremy Corbyn's "We'll have the missiles, but leave out the nuclear bit and pretend we have nuclear missiles."

The result was that the nukes aren't going anywhere. They're big, expensive and no one is ever going to use them. Perversely the counter argument is no one is ever going to use them precisely because we have them, which seems a small price to pay for global stability.

The larger price being paid is by those caught up in the proxy wars fought in smaller countries as an alternative to MAD.

Every single country that actually has nuclear weapons rejected the ban. This is nothing more than a symbolic protest vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Satan 2.

AKA "why news articles should consist of more than copy/pasting Russian propaganda".

 feeder wrote:
Nuclear winter would ensure that wouldn't be for long.

Nuclear winter is not a real thing. It was based on incredibly simplified climate models (modeling the entire planet as a uniform sphere, IIRC) and more modern analysis of the question does not support the theory. A nuclear war would obviously cause horrifying destruction, but would have little impact on the climate of the planet as a whole.

Not to minimize the suffering and loss as the result of the numerous regional conflicts, civil wars, etc. since World War II, but there is a lot of credible scholarship that suggests that the presences of nuclear weapons has been a significant reason why another conflict between major powers has not occurred since WWII thus contributing to overall global stability that has lead to one of the most prosperous periods in human history. That with smaller arsenals, or one side having an overwhelming advantage in nuclear forces would have eventually lead to the eventual battlefield use in some post WWII conflict to presumably disastrous results.

Also as said, don't get too excited about the UN GA voting to do anything. The UN GA votes to do lots of stuff, but unless it has the backing of the permanent members of the security council its not likely to go any where. Many in those countries will be quick to point out that much of this is political grandstanding and self serving by non-nuclear powers or attempts to get other concessions.

Russia's new found assertiveness notwithstanding, the overall geo-political situation is no where near as tense as it was back in the 80's nor is there the seemingly large popular support for anti-nuclear activism as what I can vividly remember swept Western Europe (some of it the result of Soviet agitation apparently) prior to the INF treaty.

TL;DR the nuclear deterrence policies of the US, Russia, etc. has done more good than harm, and a nuclear confrontation seems a lot less likely than it did even 30 years ago.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Not to minimize the suffering and loss as the result of the numerous regional conflicts, civil wars, etc. since World War II, but there is a lot of credible scholarship that suggests that the presences of nuclear weapons has been a significant reason why another conflict between major powers has not occurred since WWII thus contributing to overall global stability that has lead to one of the most prosperous periods in human history. That with smaller arsenals, or one side having an overwhelming advantage in nuclear forces would have eventually lead to the eventual battlefield use in some post WWII conflict to presumably disastrous results.

One could alternately argue that the existence of Nuclear Weapons and their possession by a select few constitutes hegemony by the "victors" of the Second World War, established and perpetuated by their positions as permanent members of a supposedly democratic body*. That through the monopolization of the ultimate weapon of force has enabled countries like the United States, Russia, and China (just to name three) may perpetuate a tyranny against the many other nations of the world where their interests will always be in primacy and everyone else dependent on the patronage of a nuclear power. Thus we are forced to ponder what is worse, a perpetual era of tyrannical peace where the many are forced to tow the line of the few, or a period of war and uncertainty from which we do not know what will arise?

I don't know the answer but I know someone who thinks they do!



Hats, for your daily dose of "well lets all think about something that absolutely sucks"

*Democratic in the sense that every country is supposed to have one vote, and cycle through various committees and councils to give everyone an equal say.

I've been thinking that nuclear weapons might be a little bit like financial regulations. Back when everything was really fethed up: we made them. Then a long period of stability followed. After a while, people became accustomed to the stability, and started saying things like: It's unthinkable that everything could get all fethed-up again, like it did in the past, why do we need these things? Let's get rid of them.

The economist Hyman Minsky proposed that this cycle is what leads to future financial crises, and everyone laughed at him. Then the sub-prime mortgage crisis happened.

As a liberal, I'm inclined to be against financial deregulation, and in favour of nuclear disarmament, but I can't ignore the parallel. I think nuclear weapons definitely need to be made safer, and that might involve reducing their number, to make them more manageable. But I also think it would be unwise to ignore the arguments for having them, the wars that preceded them, and the apparent stability that followed. Despite all their problems and dangers, they seem to work, I think we should keep them.

You can't have our nukes. Someone new might make some and try to break into our house. And then what? Castle Doctrine, mother fether!

If they sneaked a nuke into Florida and blew up Miami, how would we retaliate? Normal bombs and cruse missiles? No way! We have bigger penises than that!

Though it maybe counter intuitive, fewer nuclear weapons could increase the risk of them being used. Both the US and Russia have since reaching nuclear parity have committed to the idea that the use of even a single nuclear device would ultimately lead to MAD. That if stockpiles were to fall under the threshold needed for MAD, then they or their potential adversary's may at some point be tempted to use a device since even if the other nation responded with everything they had, it would not result in leaving them without any war fighting capability and thus a perceived path to victory.

By the way, if you want an analog just look at the Washington Navel Treaty. While a noble idea born both out of wanting to avoid another world war and the supposed mutual economic advantages, it ultimately left the US and Britain at a strategic disadvantage in the Pacific further solidifying Japan's belief it needed to attack sooner and attempt a knock out blow in the Pacific and helped contribute to Japan's early success in the War. One often overlooked fact of that treaty is that it also forbid the construction of shore fortifications which was to Japan's advantage. How much blood and treasure might have been saved had the US and Britain had a more effective navel deterrent in the Pacific. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor or invaded the Philippines, Malaysia, etc.?

Ultimately I am left to conclude that at this time and for the indefinite future, banning nuclear weapons is not achievable and would in fact lead to a significantly higher risk of nuclear weapons being used. Much like the debate over fossil fuels, while ostensibly desirable, just not achievable or practical without extraordinary risks of social and economic instability whose immediate consequences would more than set back what people hope to gain.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
That has always been true, today just as much as in the past. Nuclear weapons are an important force for peace by providing an effective deterrent against any would-be attackers. Removing them would be a disaster, since it would remove the fear of being destroyed that keeps the great powers from attacking each other. It'd mean that the great powers could once again engage in warfare with each other.

I for one am glad the UN has decided to ban nuclear weapons and look forward to them dismantling their stockpi- oh, wait...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
That has always been true, today just as much as in the past. Nuclear weapons are an important force for peace by providing an effective deterrent against any would-be attackers. Removing them would be a disaster, since it would remove the fear of being destroyed that keeps the great powers from attacking each other. It'd mean that the great powers could once again engage in warfare with each other.

I think the real threat would come from a so-called "rogue state" (the perpetual boogeymen of North Korea and Iran, as examples) or a non-state entity (a terrorist organization or the secret society of your choice) getting a nuclear weapon and using it, because in the chaotic aftermath of such an event, mistakes are going to be made in response.

I know it's really just a Hollywood thing, but part of me still wonders if there are any old automated systems out there programmed to automatically launch a retaliatory strike if attacked (in which case, I hope we have enough mine shafts to spare, we can't have a mine shaft gap). But, that's just my paranoia talking.

The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to get him back into the bottle.

 Breotan wrote:
I for one am glad the UN has decided to ban nuclear weapons and look forward to them dismantling their stockpi- oh, wait...

What, has nobody seen Superman IV?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
That has always been true, today just as much as in the past. Nuclear weapons are an important force for peace by providing an effective deterrent against any would-be attackers. Removing them would be a disaster, since it would remove the fear of being destroyed that keeps the great powers from attacking each other. It'd mean that the great powers could once again engage in warfare with each other.

I think the real threat would come from a so-called "rogue state" (the perpetual boogeymen of North Korea and Iran, as examples) or a non-state entity (a terrorist organization or the secret society of your choice) getting a nuclear weapon and using it, because in the chaotic aftermath of such an event, mistakes are going to be made in response.

I know it's really just a Hollywood thing, but part of me still wonders if there are any old automated systems out there programmed to automatically launch a retaliatory strike if attacked (in which case, I hope we have enough mine shafts to spare, we can't have a mine shaft gap). But, that's just my paranoia talking.

Naw...still requires a "human" finger to launch anything like that.

Also, keep in mind that the radioactive materials has a distinct 'signature' such that after such explosions, forensics can show where it came from... the World will figure out the who/how in short order.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to get him back into the bottle.

Nothing is permanent.

Question is do nuclear weapons vanish because humans decide to get rid of what will sooner or later kill them or because they are replaced by even more devastating weapon.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/28/un-votes-to-start-negotiating-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons

What do people think? They've gotten far too big and are clearly a waste of resources; no sane person is going to use them, and the consequences of doing so are unthinkable now that Russia has announced the Satan 2.

It's not the sane person that the ultimate weapon in the arsenal is maintained for and exists to deter.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I for one am glad the UN has decided to ban nuclear weapons and look forward to them dismantling their stockpi- oh, wait...

What, has nobody seen Superman IV?

Is that the one with Brandon Routh?

Excuse me. are you saying the Russians made super satan?

does it come with marmalade?

tneva82 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to get him back into the bottle.

Nothing is permanent.

Question is do nuclear weapons vanish because humans decide to get rid of what will sooner or later kill them or because they are replaced by even more devastating weapon.

Look at the sword, the bow, the catapult. It's the latter option.

 jreilly89 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to get him back into the bottle.

Nothing is permanent.

Question is do nuclear weapons vanish because humans decide to get rid of what will sooner or later kill them or because they are replaced by even more devastating weapon.

Look at the sword, the bow, the catapult. It's the latter option.

Your opinion. But future is not yet here so one cannot know. You assume humans cannot evolve and are therefore doomed to kill themselves in stupidity. I'm holding hope humans might actually learn from mistakes.

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to get him back into the bottle.

Nothing is permanent.

Question is do nuclear weapons vanish because humans decide to get rid of what will sooner or later kill them or because they are replaced by even more devastating weapon.

Look at the sword, the bow, the catapult. It's the latter option.

Your opinion. But future is not yet here so one cannot know. You assume humans cannot evolve and are therefore doomed to kill themselves in stupidity. I'm holding hope humans might actually learn from mistakes.

It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

 jreilly89 wrote:

It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

So you claim to be able to see future. Care to share in PM next week's lottery numbers? Could do with couple millions.

Just because something has happened before doesn't mean it has to happen in future. Human psyche is also not permanent. Humans change. This means there is potential also to actually learn from mistakes and avoid the otherwise inevitable self-destruct.

tneva82 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

It's not opinion, it's fact. Sure humans have declared some weapons to gruesome to be used (mustard gas, corpse throwing ala Constantinople), but we've just replaced them with better and bigger weapons.

So you claim to be able to see future. Care to share in PM next week's lottery numbers? Could do with couple millions.

Just because something has happened before doesn't mean it has to happen in future. Human psyche is also not permanent. Humans change. This means there is potential also to actually learn from mistakes and avoid the otherwise inevitable self-destruct.

Please point out where I claimed to see the future. I'm just hedging my bet's on what I think is likely to happen. Given the last 2000 years of lottery numbers, I'd hedge my bets and give you that.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Please point out where I claimed to see the future. I'm just hedging my bet's on what I think is likely to happen. Given the last 2000 years of lottery numbers, I'd hedge my bets and give you that.

You claim to know what will happen. That requires knowledge of future which is silly claim since everything is changing every second. You are not the you who was second before and humans in future aren't humans are now. I'll even let you in for a secret. One day there won't BE humans as they have changed into something else. Pile of ash or some other form of life is up for grasp but only thing is sure that it won't be humans of today.

If humans were non-changing you would be correct in assuming nukes will be replaced always with something better weapon and not with some other. Of course if there's something reality teaches us is though humans change. You wouldn't even BE here if things didn't change.

Because everything changes everything(including life itself) is possible. This does mean there's potential that humans change into something better than they are now. Actually given enough time that would be automatic(roll 1,000,000 dice enough times and you get all 6's sooner or later). Question is just do we change out of existance before that happens. Doesn't change the fact potential is there though.