How do you feel about WMDs?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Three problems:

1.) Nukes are very hard to make. There are four cornerstones required for a nation to produce nukes: know-how, capital, management, and facilities. The average country doesn't have these to the specifics necessary for producing any sort of WMD except for comparatively weak chemical and maybe radiological "dirty" bombs.
2.) The average rogue faction such as terrorists or the above nation cannot simply steal or buy these weapons. Doing so would draw the ire of every nation on Earth the moment the transaction is made, and trust me, they'll know where every nuke is.

1- they really aren't, the hard part is enriching the uranium to the high percentage needed for fission.

And you consider that not part of making a nuke?

2- average faction like the Taliban who rarely go outside their own nation. Trust me obtaining uranium enough for one bomb is easier then anyone wants to admit to. Just look at how many devices were lost by both the US and USSR and remain lost to this day. The reason they aren't more widespread is no nation or group have a motive that ought weighs the risk.

You're forgetting that you just said five minutes ago the the uranium must be enriched. Can the taliban get their hands on enriched uranium? Clearly not. The reasons they're not as widespread is because 1.) International law, and 2.) it's hard to make nukes.

[Blazedtown]

1- they really aren't, the hard part is enriching the uranium to the high percentage needed for fission.

And you consider that not part of making a nuke?

2- average faction like the Taliban who rarely go outside their own nation. Trust me obtaining uranium enough for one bomb is easier then anyone wants to admit to. Just look at how many devices were lost by both the US and USSR and remain lost to this day. The reason they aren't more widespread is no nation or group have a motive that ought weighs the risk.

You're forgetting that you just said five minutes ago the the uranium must be enriched. Can the taliban get their hands on enriched uranium? Clearly not. The reasons they're not as widespread is because 1.) International law, and 2.) it's hard to make nukes.

Not really. Its 70 year old technology. Like he said, the hardest part is enriching the Uranium. Making powerful ones is what's really difficult. The most basic gun design is just taking two chuck of weapons grade uranium and putting them at opposite ends of a tube and putting equal explosive charges behind them. Of course you still have to have extremely accurate timing devices on your detonators otherwise you end up with a fissile and then its just a dirty bomb, whose main effect is panic. This is likely what happened to North Korea's nuclear test, the timer didn't work properly. If I remember right, the upper limit on these types of simple device isn't much more than the Hiroshima bomb. Don't ask for a source on this, its stuff I'm remembering from a bunch of old declassified military studies on nuclear weapons design. Anything that could actually be useful if you wanted more than a basic overview had the shit redacted out of it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And you consider that not part of making a nuke?

You're forgetting that you just said five minutes ago the the uranium must be enriched. Can the taliban get their hands on enriched uranium? Clearly not. The reasons they're not as widespread is because 1.) International law, and 2.) it's hard to make nukes.

Not really. Its 70 year old technology. Like he said, the hardest part is enriching the Uranium. Making powerful ones is what's really difficult. The most basic gun design is just taking two chuck of weapons grade uranium and putting them at opposite ends of a tube and putting equal explosive charges behind them. Of course you still have to have extremely accurate timing devices on your detonators otherwise you end up with a fissile and then its just a dirty bomb, whose main effect is panic. This is likely what happened to North Korea's nuclear test, the timer didn't work properly. If I remember right, the upper limit on these types of simple device isn't much more than the Hiroshima bomb. Don't ask for a source on this, its stuff I'm remembering from a bunch of old declassified military studies on nuclear weapons design. Anything that could actually be useful if you wanted more than a basic overview had the shit redacted out of it.

I wouldn't ask for a source from you. For one, what you're saying is primarily stuff I already have prior knowledge of; and for two, it's safe to assume that your word simply changes the nature of the universe, like a Dovah or something.

[Shnercropolis]

In war people die. Does it really matter by which means the would be corpses are helped along to their ultimate destination? If you hate killing than by all means ban war it self. I can support that. Anything less are just meaningless gestures to make your self feel good.

That's ridiculous. How would you enforce a ban on war?

By threatening a declaration of war.

[MERIZoC]

The major powers aren't really trying to kill each other right now. More mutual disarmament treaties are what we need right now, especially between India and Pakistan.

Seems to me Russia's starting to go mongering for some war right now. But I agree, we don't need that many nukes.

They're quite willing to bully the smaller countries around them, but Putin doesn't want a fight with the biggest kid on the playground.

[Napkiraly]

In war people die. Does it really matter by which means the would be corpses are helped along to their ultimate destination? If you hate killing than by all means ban war it self. I can support that. Anything less are just meaningless gestures to make your self feel good.

That's ridiculous. How would you enforce a ban on war?

Through force. *nod*

[Blazedtown]

That's ridiculous. How would you enforce a ban on war?

Through the force. *nod*

Fix'd.

[Pope Joan]

As I recall, WMD was a boogeyman conjured up into scaring us into war.

So, I despise the ruse.

[Augarundus]

WMD's can be extremely effective as tactical weapons. Weaponized Tularemia spores infect those exposed very easily and the disease is highly incapacitating, but it is rarely fatal.
A low-yield nuclear artillery shell can totally destroy a Forward operating base while causing little damage to civilians provided that it is not located in a town or a city.
A nuclear depth charge would cause an incredible amount of damage to a fleet of warships while the fallout would quickly be diluted and rendered harmless by ocean currents.

The purpose of tactical nuclear weapons is partially to solve the credibility problem you mentioned. "Stop your advancing troops or I'll nuke them" is a much more credible threat than "stop your advancing troops or I'll wipe your country off the face of the earth".

1) Part of this just depends on how we define WMDs - John Mearsheimer had some good articles back when the US was considering intervening in Syria about how we're constantly changing the parameters of what constitutes a "WMD". So tactical effectiveness varies widely, depending upon the weapon and circumstances. I'm essentially conflating "WMD" with "nuclear weapons" atm, though that's a very narrow view, I know.

2) I'm not sure a limited nuclear war would remain so limited for long. I'm not an IR expert, so I don't have an opinion on this or the feasibility of WMD overall, so don't take this as a real rebuttal. But there's very significant debate (I recall a few essays by Kissinger, for example) about the feasibility of limited/tactical nuclear warfare.

3) I wouldn't be so sure about tactical nuclear deterrence. As above, the problem of preventing nuclear escalation and the presence of a strong taboo means that nuclear weapon's value as a strategic weapon is very deflated by perception.


This is an issue about which the IR community has no real conclusion, and I'm not well-educated enough to really have an opinion. Consider the above just food for thought.

[-The Trade Federation-]

Again...

Who cares about WMDs when we have kinetic bombardment and other fancy weapons ?

[Blazedtown]

Again...

Who cares about WMDs when we have kinetic bombardment and other fancy weapons ?

I'm guessing you mean orbital kinetic bombardment. Which country currently has a system like this in service or under serious development? I'm guessing you mean some sort of rods from god style orbital weapons platform. Although undoubtedly effective, it would be insanely expensive with current launch platforms.

[Pilotto]

Again...

Who cares about WMDs when we have kinetic bombardment and other fancy weapons ?

I'm guessing you mean orbital kinetic bombardment. Which country currently has a system like this in service or under serious development? I'm guessing you mean some sort of rods from god style orbital weapons platform. Although undoubtedly effective, it would be insanely expensive with current launch platforms.

He's been playing too much CoD.

[Scomagia]

I'm guessing you mean orbital kinetic bombardment. Which country currently has a system like this in service or under serious development? I'm guessing you mean some sort of rods from god style orbital weapons platform. Although undoubtedly effective, it would be insanely expensive with current launch platforms.

He's been playing too much CoD.

CoD isn't an accurate representation of real-life warfare? Who knew...

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

I am against WMDs since they have a large potential to kill civilians.

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

He's been playing too much CoD.

CoD isn't an accurate representation of real-life warfare? Who knew...

It is historical though.

[Scomagia]

I am against WMDs since they have a large potential to kill civilians.

They have also prevented potentially millions of deaths.

[Napkiraly]

I am against WMDs since they have a large potential to kill civilians.

So do bullets.

[Indira]

Nuclear weapons are fine. They prevent wars and rather crucially, you can't put that particular genie back in the bottle. Biological and chemical weapons are pretty useless in modern warfare, so I don't like them

[MERIZoC]

I am against WMDs since they have a large potential to kill civilians.

They have also prevented potentially millions of deaths.

Mass killing of civilians is never justified. A soldier fights to protect civilians. Justifying killing the latter to preserve the lives of the former is ridiculous.

[Blazedtown]

Nuclear weapons are fine. They prevent wars and rather crucially, you can't put that particular genie back in the bottle. Biological and chemical weapons are pretty useless in modern warfare, so I don't like them

Not really. Nerve agents are excellent area denial weapons, which can slow down a pursuing enemy during a retreat, and can be used to funnel them into bottlenecked killzones. Biological on the other hand fully deserve to be outlawed because they are far more indiscriminate and making diseases even harder to eradicate is really idiotic.

[North America and Great Britain]

They are necessary evil. Either everyone has them and keeps the threat of using them down through MAD, or no one does and war is conducted through conventional means (which can be just as destructive).

[Scomagia]

They have also prevented potentially millions of deaths.

Mass killing of civilians is never justified. A soldier fights to protect civilians. Justifying killing the latter to preserve the lives of the former is ridiculous.

I was referring to nuclear weapons and MAD.

[MERIZoC]

Mass killing of civilians is never justified. A soldier fights to protect civilians. Justifying killing the latter to preserve the lives of the former is ridiculous.

I was referring to nuclear weapons and MAD.

Ah, okay. Gotcha.

[Doitsu-san]

I'd rather have three world wars fought with infantry, tanks, planes, and ships than one world war fought with nuclear weapons.

[-The Trade Federation-]

I'm guessing you mean orbital kinetic bombardment. Which country currently has a system like this in service or under serious development? I'm guessing you mean some sort of rods from god style orbital weapons platform. Although undoubtedly effective, it would be insanely expensive with current launch platforms.

He's been playing too much CoD.

Actually, I never even tried CoD Ghosts