Nukes: Good or Bad?

[Camaero]

Now before you say WTF? They are BAD! Think about it. With the invention of the A-bomb and after the nuclear arms race, there can never be another world war. There can never even be a war on a very large scale ever again. Because if there is, we are all whiped out. So of course, if some of the world leaders make poor choices then it could bring an age of nuclear waste and blah blah. Yet if everyone stays smart, and if they worry about their own skin, how can the great powers ever battle again? What do you guys think about this? It seems that the only way it can be done these days are by terrorists.

So how bout it? Will all the great powers having nukes bring the world a sort of doomsday machine in which everyone is afraid to attack eachother for fear of a nuclear fall out? Or will it bring the end as we know it?

Now please don't turn this into a Hiroshima thread. Leave that out of this. I am talking of the world at its current date.

[Marhkimov]

I agree, nukes in a "humanitarian view" are bad...

But you'll really have a hard time proving that. Trust me, I've already tried.

[Drebbel]

There can never even be a war on a very large scale ever again.

Huh ? Why not. The nuke powers and non-nuke have no problem starting wars these days. When you get shot in the head it does not really matter if it is a world war or a war between just 2 countries.

Every nuclear power has been involved in many wars after world war two. Nuke-bombs did not stop them doing that at all.

[Scion]

Red Storm Rising was based on a non-WMD NATO vs Warsaw Pact war. IIRC, the russians had a coup when the politburo tried to get nukes going.

[TLAM Strike]

Every nuclear power has been involved in many wars after world war two. Nuke-bombs did not stop them doing that at all. Really? The Soviet Union had been involved (Directly and Officially) in 1 (Afghanistan) war since WWII (They also provided pilots in two wars and have had some border disputes but that’s really minor. I’m not counting aid to side in a war only large scale fighting) and the Russian Federation (if you count that as a separate Country) has been involved in 1 large-scale war (Chechnya and thats a civil war, they have of course provided aid to countries involved in war too but again minor). Since having nuclear weapons the Russian people have only engaged (beyond minor assistance and selling weapons) in one major foreign war that does prove Camaero’s hypnosis.

Second case to consider, France. Every war they have been involved in was either a territory trying to break away from them (Vietnam/Indochina, and Algeria), something that was a major threat to its people (Suez Crisis), or was backed by the UN (Korea, Gulf War I). Again Camaero’s hypnosis is true in some cases.

[Oberon]

Looking at it from a personal viewpoint, nuclear weapons are a terrible thing, the destruction they cause and the contamination left behind are ghastly.
However, the threat of MAD was one of the (many) reasons we didn't have the cold war go hot. Although it was quite likely that the Soviet Union and NATO could have waged a war without the use of nuclear arms (ala RSR), the longer the war went on the more likely it would be that nukes would have been used. Probably small tactical nukes at first....then the bigger guns and then Game Over.
Who would have used them first? Well, that would depend on how well the primary assault went for the Sovs, since that would in essence determine the beat of the war. If it went badly then chances are it would the Soviets using it for a breakthrough, and vice versa for NATO.
If not nukes then certainly chemical weapons...which in my opinion are just as bad as nukes.
So...at the end of that tangent, my basic point is, nukes are like having a dog, it may not stop a burglar but it'll give him/her something to think about.

[Marhkimov]

... my basic point is, nukes are like having a dog, it may not stop a burglar but it'll give him/her something to think about.
But nukes are nowhere near as cute as dogs.... ;)

[Oberon]

... my basic point is, nukes are like having a dog, it may not stop a burglar but it'll give him/her something to think about.
But nukes are nowhere near as cute as dogs.... ;)

'Bout as destructive though ;)

[CB..]

i guess India and Pakistan will be the proving ground - but ultimately long term the issue may not be be who has nuclear weapons but who is allowed to have them--

[mog]

The advent of nuclear weapons has been the single greatest step toward world peace in mankind's history.

[Marhkimov]

The advent of nuclear weapons has been the single greatest step toward world peace in mankind's history.
Are you kidding me??? You call THIS a peaceful world????????

It's not even a step towards it... :nope:

[Torplexed]

I think for most of their existence nuclear weapons have acted as a great leveler of the playing field (in more ways than one) In War soldiers have always been at risk of death. Civilians behind the lines came increasing under the gun during the modern age as viable targets in bombing campaigns. However, nukes were the first weapons that the leadership class who are usually the most protected from the effects of war really had to fear. You might have the best fallout shelter taxes can buy but in the end it's still just a hole in the ground. Not much power or prestige there.

I believe the indiscriminate power of atomic weapons weighed heavily on many minds in high places and probably went a long way in keeping wars from growing out of hand in the latter 20th century.

What worries me nowdays are the fanatics who aren't really too concerned about their temporal life on this earth.

Sure hope we never have to go back to the good 'ole days....

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/lifefallout.jpg

[mog]

The advent of nuclear weapons has been the single greatest step toward world peace in mankind's history.
Are you kidding me??? You call THIS a peaceful world????????

It's not even a step towards it... :nope:
Do you have any idea how many people died in WWII? Tens of millions. With the nuclear deterrent, another Total War like that will never happen again. If you don't think we are now living in relative peace, then I would assume you must be woefully ignorant of just how bloody the last century was.

[Pigfish]

The advent of nuclear weapons has been the single greatest step toward world peace in mankind's history.
Are you kidding me??? You call THIS a peaceful world????????

It's not even a step towards it... :nope:

Maybe not peaceful, but certainally a lot better, over all.

From what Ive read of history there was a lot more war/death/famine going on then then there is now on a yearly basis. Maybe some one has a link with the statistics?

For the most part Earth is a better place to live for us humans then it was 150 years or more ago. If the planet Earth could speak she might disagree. :-j

Far, far from perfect but over all better I think. For now. :hmm:

IMHO.

This is true, that invention of the most terrible weapon in history let to many relatevely peaceful years. If WW1 was called "the war to end all wars", so we can call A-bomb "the bomb to end global wars". As I said here once, our fathers and granfathers guessed, that there can no be winners in nuclear war. Because of it, our planet isn't doomed yet. Though one Typhoon or Ohaio salvo is enough to change Earth orbit dramatically...
But this (relatively) peaceful time became possible only because of US and Soviet parity. They both had the nukes and because of it, couldn't use it.
Leaders of USA and USSR had "something" to loose in a full-scale conflict. They had a large and civilized own countries behind them. They knew that every strike would be answered. Those anti-missile defence systems must be 100% effective - not a grain less. If AMDS is effective even 99% - it means that 1 warhead out of 100 will reach the destination. Just multiply ten New Orleans by ten Chernobyls - and you'll got what it seems to be.
So, if two opponents both have nukes - it prevents them from a full-scale war.
But what we'll get, if the nukes will be given to coutry like Iran? From one side, it will be the same "weapon in being": nukes will defence Iran from intervention even if not be used.
But other side? Ahmadinejad clearly stated, that "Israel must be destroyed". He didn't mentioned, if he personally would conduct it, or if nukes will be used... But: if any hothead want to show his power and launch a nuke - it will lead to a chain reaction. Nukes is not a Big Knife or a pistol, nuke is not a thing for sabre-rattling. Possessing the nukes is, maybe, a greatest responsibility in a humankind history.
Is Iran ready to take it? I'm not shure.

[Skybird]

I think possession of nukes needs a certain minimal level of sense of responsebility. For that a minimal level of reason and mental developement of a society and civilization, culture, is needed. This includes habits, traditional customs, religion, history, because all this form the way people think and act, forms the way they think about what causes justify what means, what border my understanding needs to accept when touching the borders of the liberty of foreign people. No ideology and no religion has even the smallest right to declare it's own superiority. Only certain "dont's" may have a general validity for all people and all societies and cultures. You shall not missionize. you shall not mutilate children for religious reasons. You shall not call for hate against those thinking different than you do. Things like this, and so on.

Some countries qualify for having nukes, in this understanding. Others do not - most countries and societies, that is.

Someone said because there are nukes, there cannot be war. That reasoning is illogical. Where is it written that war and peace always is decided by reason? In many parts of ther world, Africa in special, war is a way to earn your living, it is a living form. with the loss of importance of the concept of national states we fall back to the historical conditions before the peace treaty of Westphalia, after a war lasting for thirty years (only one of many). where there are no two parties recognizing each other, there cannot be treaties. The more demonizing of the other takes place, no matter if for political or religious arguments, the lesser acceptance of treaties there is. The more willingness to enforce your peace, the more violance there will be to resist your peace. War and peace are mankind's two ever-present brothers. We cannot escape that family, I fear.

Many, most wars are started with the declaration of best intentions.

[Kapitan]

the thing of knowlage is to be feared the use of knowlage is to be utterly scared of and the know how well need i say more


yes nukes are a good thing why do you think no one has nuked china russia britain america or france

NUKES

america's 14 ohios russias 15 nuclear boomers britain and frances 4 boats and chinas single boat have kept the peace for years

they will do for a while yet

Someone said because there are nukes, there cannot be war. That reasoning is illogical. Where is it written that war and peace always is decided by reason? In many parts of ther world, Africa in special, war is a way to earn your living, it is a living form. <...> Many, most wars are started with the declaration of best intentions.
The GLOBAL war is meaned. Of course, the nations who's living in war, can't change their way of living at once. That's why there are no nukes in such countries. But the large nations, who experienced many destructive wars, two of which were GLOBAL, do understand whan A-bomb means.
But... If Nukes were less powerful, less radioactive - if using Nukes meaned not the elimination of humankind, but only a good defeat for an enemy - nukes would be used.
Those "mental developement of a society and civilization, culture, <...> habits, traditional customs, religion, history, <...>" and so on never prevented "civilized" countries from unleashing wars.

[Skybird]

After the Cuba crisis, I think it was Kissinger saying: " We were not in control. We did not master this crisis. WE SIMPLY WERE LUCKY."

I can easily imagine a mindset that would love to unleash a nuclear war, global or not, in order to bring down the rest of the world intentionally. Germany in special can mention a very famous example from it's past. Today there are idologies and religions teaching people to kill other people not submitting to that ideology's or religion's dogma, and that sacrificing oneself brings reward after death. This kind of thinking makes me nervous.

The strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction MAD only works as long as all players have the fear of death in common. It takes only one player who is not like that - and the game is immediately ruined for all.

[Drebbel]

Wasn't it last year that couple of officers where courtmartialed because the did not fire a nuke missle at the enemy because they thought the order was a mistake ?

And they where right, it was indeed a mistake. No flowers/candy.new car or whtever for them, they got a lawyer on their back hahahahaha, next time they prolly just send that nuke on its way :rock: BOOOOOOOOm, sorry

[Takeda Shingen]

Nuclear weapons, like all weapons, are inanimate objects and are, therefore, neither good nor bad. Application is what determines the object's relative standing. The question should be thus: Are man's historical and intentional use of this object good or bad?

[August]

Who would have used them first? Well, that would depend on how well the primary assault went for the Sovs, since that would in essence determine the beat of the war. If it went badly then chances are it would the Soviets using it for a breakthrough, and vice versa for NATO.

Actually we were told back then that the use of tactical nukes was a part of NATO defensive strategy at least in a Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany scenario.

It had to be that way. Back then (late 70's whe i was stationed there) the Soviets outnumbered NATO in about every conventional area, from troops to tanks (especially tanks) to aircraft (mainly helos). Were NATO to agree to no first use it would have put them at an enormous tactical disadvantage.

On the other hand we considered the use of tactical nukes by the Soviets in that scenario unlikely, since they would have to advance into those areas and would be irradiating their own troops.

Of course this was all academic since it ultimately would have been the Germans who had to agree to the use of nukes in their homeland and i don't think they would have, even if it meant Soviet domination.

[kiwi_2005]

If it wasn't for Nukes, ww3 would of started by now. I like to think nukes keep the peace.

[Marhkimov]

If it wasn't for Nukes, ww3 would of started by now.
How?

Please, someone humor me...

[kiwi_2005]

what bad thing has the nukes done then? Dont mention hiroshima that had to happen and was a good thing at the time, it was either that or sending approx 300,000 US to there deaths by attacking Japan if they did a beach landing etc., dropping a bomb on two major cities help end the war. Nukes are good nukes keep ww3 from happening.

They dont stop skirmish wars.

[TLAM Strike]

They dont stop skirmish wars. Don't forget Korea the US might have escalated the war in to China if it wasn't for the risk the war might have gone nuclear.

[Torpedo Fodder]

They dont stop skirmish wars. Don't forget Korea the US might have escalated the war in to China if it wasn't for the risk the war might have gone nuclear.

The only reason anyone (namely MacAurther) considered escalating the Korean war into China was because at that time, the US enjoyed absolute nuclear supremacy: China was many years away from having nukes, and the USSR had only tested it's first nuclear device less than a year before Korea began, and didn't have a production model in service until that war was over. Note that during Vietnam (by which time the USSR had a fairly large arsenel and China was starting it's own), the US constrained itself very carefully from doing anything that might escalate the war to directly involve either China or the USSR.

[TLAM Strike]

They dont stop skirmish wars. Don't forget Korea the US might have escalated the war in to China if it wasn't for the risk the war might have gone nuclear.

The only reason anyone (namely MacAurther) considered escalating the Korean war into China was because at that time, the US enjoyed absolute nuclear supremacy: China was many years away from having nukes, and the USSR had only tested it's first nuclear device less than a year before Korea began, and didn't have a production model in service until that war was over. Remember that when the Korean War started the Russians and their Allies show up with new weapons the West never saw before (Like the MiG-15) and remembering how long it took from the Test of the US's first A-Bomb till the bombing of Japan the US feared that the Russians maybe be able to have a working bomb in sufficiently short a time to be a threat to US forces in Korea and Japan.

[MadMike]

Just think what the world situation would be like if the Nazi's, Japanese, or Soviets had beaten the U.S and Great Britain to the bomb. Nazi and Italian fascist stupidity in persecuting Jewish scientists resulted in individuals like Fermi, Teller, and many others emigrating to the U.S.
The KGB was pretty much well aware of the progress regarding our nuclear program, thanks in part to spies like Klaus Fuchs. More info can be read here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs#Wartime_work_and_espionage

Just saw a clip of Ahmadinejad on the tele; his jesticulations were eerily reminscent of a little Austrian fellow back in '39...

Yours, Mike