Nukes: Good or Bad?

Camaero · 01-14-06, 06:38 PM

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 · 01-14-06, 07:03 PM

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 · 01-14-06, 07:23 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-14-06, 07:32 PM

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 · 01-14-06, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drebbel

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 thatâ€™s really minor. Iâ€™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 Camaeroâ€™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 Camaeroâ€™s hypnosis is true in some cases.

Oberon · 01-14-06, 08:01 PM

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 · 01-14-06, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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....

Oberon · 01-14-06, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marhkimov

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.. · 01-14-06, 11:23 PM

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 · 01-14-06, 11:26 PM

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

Marhkimov · 01-14-06, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

Torplexed · 01-15-06, 12:08 AM

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....

mog · 01-15-06, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marhkimov

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 01-15-06, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marhkimov

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

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

IMHO.

01-15-06, 07:01 AM

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.

01-14-06, 06:38 PM	#1
Camaero The Old Man Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA, Massachusetts Posts: 1,477 Downloads: 18 Uploads: 0	Nukes: Good or Bad? 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. __________________

01-14-06, 07:03 PM	#2
Marhkimov Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bay Area, California, USA Posts: 2,377 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ It takes two to tango

01-14-06, 11:23 PM	#9
CB.. Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 1,278 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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-- __________________ the world's tinyiest sh3 supermod- and other SH3/SH2 stuff http://www.ebort2.co.uk/ The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W.B.Yeats

01-14-06, 07:32 PM	#4
Scion Sailor man Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 47 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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.

01-14-06, 08:01 PM	#6
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.

01-14-06, 11:26 PM	#10
mog Medic Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 163 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The advent of nuclear weapons has been the single greatest step toward world peace in mankind's history.

01-15-06, 12:08 AM	#12
Torplexed Let's Sink Sumptin' ! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,823 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	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....

01-15-06, 07:01 AM	#15
Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.