Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion

[Novus America]

Well they still have to follow the chain of command. The issue is not the military launching without authorization, the issue is having to launch too quickly without making an informed decision.

If London or Washington is already destroyed the submarine commanders then have implied authority to launch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

Standing orders inherently bypass the chain of command, especially if the chain of command no longer exists to intervene.

I explicitly made the point that the chain of command sets those standing orders up.

But again that is not the danger. Hair trigger alerts that ground based missiles require are. A ground based missile must be launched on alert, leaving its silo before the attack can be confirmed. Subs can wait until the attack has been confirmed.

Standing orders that only activate after an attack has been confirmed as the enemey missiles have already hit are not the risk.

[Aterria]

BOOM.

Nippon was not effected.

That was 80 years ago!

[Portugese Soverign States]

Nuclear weapons cause mass destruction and death, which is ofcourse bad, but as a wise man once said, its good that war is so scary, else we would not fear it
If we did not fear the use of nuclear weapons on both Agressor and Defender ww3 would have broken out
Basicly the most dangerous weapon in the world is a key item in peace.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Nippon was not effected.

That was 80 years ago!

(I was looking at your flag, Aterriaball)

[Aterria]

That was 80 years ago!

(I was looking at your flag, Aterriaball)

It's supposed to refer back to my history's 2nd Eurasian war. We ended it by dropping a few nukes on Nippon. (Including Tokyo)

/skip

[Indo-Malaysian Puppet]

/skip

Is this Forum 7?

[Union of Rossiya]

Frankly they're not small/efficient enough yet (Yes I know about Davy Crockett & Briefcase nukes) Something like the Davy Crockett but more practical (More boom and less radiation) and modern.

[Crackbone]

NUKILAR WAR.

[Dooom35796821595]

Frankly they're not small/efficient enough yet (Yes I know about Davy Crockett & Briefcase nukes) Something like the Davy Crockett but more practical (More boom and less radiation) and modern.

W80. It's small enough to fit on a cruise missile and can reach yields of 150Kt.

[Sjovenia]

Standing orders inherently bypass the chain of command, especially if the chain of command no longer exists to intervene.

I explicitly made the point that the chain of command sets those standing orders up.

But again that is not the danger. Hair trigger alerts that ground based missiles require are. A ground based missile must be launched on alert, leaving its silo before the attack can be confirmed. Subs can wait until the attack has been confirmed.

Standing orders that only activate after an attack has been confirmed as the enemey missiles have already hit are not the risk.

Our nukes do NOT leave their silos unless we are attacked. I can only assume its the same for subs HOWEVER Air Launched missiles may be launched without confirming enemy missiles are on its way. Not likely as that would fire up a shit storm

[Imperializt Russia]

Frankly they're not small/efficient enough yet (Yes I know about Davy Crockett & Briefcase nukes) Something like the Davy Crockett but more practical (More boom and less radiation) and modern.

Without "radiation", there would be no such thing as a "nuclear detonation".
All effects of a nuclear detonation are fundamentally, expressly or caused by radiation.

The attenuation of hard X-rays from the initial burst in air causes rapid heating, which causes thermal expansion of that air, which generates a shock front, causing both the flash and the blast.

I know what you mean, but in a topic so poorly understood, clarity is important.
Modern warheads are "clean". Eliminating radiation isn't really a thing, though minimising bomb fragments and reducing the amount of material that may later fallout (or washout etc) is, and has been steadily progressing as the warheads become more advanced.

The large yield of earlier warheads was predominantly due to a lack of precision from weapon systems. Modern systems rarely stray towards megaton-yields, because they can achieve a precision where they no longer require such a yield.

[Crackbone]

Frankly they're not small/efficient enough yet (Yes I know about Davy Crockett & Briefcase nukes) Something like the Davy Crockett but more practical (More boom and less radiation) and modern.

Without "radiation", there would be no such thing as a "nuclear detonation".
All effects of a nuclear detonation are fundamentally, expressly or caused by radiation.

The attenuation of hard X-rays from the initial burst in air causes rapid heating, which causes thermal expansion of that air, which generates a shock front, causing both the flash and the blast.

I know what you mean, but in a topic so poorly understood, clarity is important.
Modern warheads are "clean". Eliminating radiation isn't really a thing, though minimising bomb fragments and reducing the amount of material that may later fallout (or washout etc) is, and has been steadily progressing as the warheads become more advanced.

The large yield of earlier warheads was predominantly due to a lack of precision from weapon systems. Modern systems rarely stray towards megaton-yields, because they can achieve a precision where they no longer require such a yield.

God bless Nukeilar war

[Risottia]

Great. Nuclear states don't go to war with one another (or with one another's allies).

Exactly how was America NOT at war with North Vietnam, an ally of the Soviets?
How were America, Great Britain, France NOT at war with Yugoslavia, an ally of Russia?
How was India (supported by the Soviets) NOT at war with Pakistan (supported by America and China)?

Maybe you mean they don't escalate into a nuclear exchange.

[Crackbone]

Great. Nuclear states don't go to war with one another (or with one another's allies).

Exactly how was America NOT at war with North Vietnam, an ally of the Soviets?
How were America, Great Britain, France NOT at war with Yugoslavia, an ally of Russia?
How was India (supported by the Soviets) NOT at war with Pakistan (supported by America and China)?

Maybe you mean they don't escalate into a nuclear exchange.

>How were America, Great Britain, France NOT at war with Yugoslavia, an ally of Russia?
Out of which ass did you pull out this information

[Sjovenia]

Exactly how was America NOT at war with North Vietnam, an ally of the Soviets?
How were America, Great Britain, France NOT at war with Yugoslavia, an ally of Russia?
How was India (supported by the Soviets) NOT at war with Pakistan (supported by America and China)?

Maybe you mean they don't escalate into a nuclear exchange.

>How were America, Great Britain, France NOT at war with Yugoslavia, an ally of Russia?
Out of which ass did you pull out this information

LOL an ALLY with Russia bahahahhaa yeaaaaaa right......right....*wipes tear from eye* can some one do me the favor?

[Indo-Malaysia]

>How were America, Great Britain, France NOT at war with Yugoslavia, an ally of Russia?
Out of which ass did you pull out this information

LOL an ALLY with Russia bahahahhaa yeaaaaaa right......right....*wipes tear from eye* can some one do me the favor?

Being in the east of Europe doesn't automatically make you a soviet communist.

[Free Missouri]

Nuclear Weapons are strategically useless outside of "making sure the other guy doesn't nuke us" and I think that all of the countries in the world should agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons and sell the uranium to companies who will make clean, reliable, safe nuclear power plants.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nuclear Weapons are strategically useless outside of "making sure the other guy doesn't nuke us" and I think that all of the countries in the world should agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons and sell the uranium to companies who will make clean, reliable, safe nuclear power plants.

They already do that, y'know.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nucle ... lear-fuel/

tbh downblending the entire HEU stock in the world's militaries would probably extend the viability of enriched uranium fuels for some decades.

[Dooom35796821595]

Nuclear Weapons are strategically useless outside of "making sure the other guy doesn't nuke us" and I think that all of the countries in the world should agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons and sell the uranium to companies who will make clean, reliable, safe nuclear power plants.

It also helps to prevent direct conventional wars between nuclear nations, since no one wants to risk a first strike scenario.

[Alsheb]

I don't oppose nuclear weapons, no. Nuclear deterrence has likely prevented many a conventional war in the past, and is often the main reason for some countries to have been able to survive in the face of adversity from the main imperialist powers.

One could argue that for example Gaddhafi made a huge mistake when he decided to give up Libya's nuclear weapons programme. It removed any possible deterrence Libya had to avoid destruction.

[Alsheb]

Nuclear Weapons are strategically useless outside of "making sure the other guy doesn't nuke us" and I think that all of the countries in the world should agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons and sell the uranium to companies who will make clean, reliable, safe nuclear power plants.

In general, I would think nuclear power is harming the world more than nuclear weapons currently do.

[Free Missouri]

I don't oppose nuclear weapons, no. Nuclear deterrence has likely prevented many a conventional war in the past, and is often the main reason for some countries to have been able to survive in the face of adversity from the main imperialist powers.

One could argue that for example Gaddhafi made a huge mistake when he decided to give up Libya's nuclear weapons programme. It removed any possible deterrence Libya had to avoid destruction.

Was it really a deterrance though? I mean, we bombed them before he gave up the nukes, Israel would've blown up their nuclear program if it had to.

[Free Missouri]

Nuclear Weapons are strategically useless outside of "making sure the other guy doesn't nuke us" and I think that all of the countries in the world should agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons and sell the uranium to companies who will make clean, reliable, safe nuclear power plants.

In general, I would think nuclear power is harming the world more than nuclear weapons currently do.

How is clean, safe, energy, that has only had ONE fatal release in almost 70 years of use and that has killed less people in it's entire history than Oil/Coal kill in a half-decade, harming the world?

Oh Wait, you're middle eastern (or at least support that idiotic medieval culture), you're obviously against anything that threatens your precious oil.

[Alsheb]

In general, I would think nuclear power is harming the world more than nuclear weapons currently do.

How is clean, safe, energy, that has only had ONE fatal release in almost 70 years of use and that has killed less people in it's entire history than Oil/Coal kill in a half-decade, harming the world?

Oh Wait, you're middle eastern (or at least support that idiotic medieval culture), you're obviously against anything that threatens your precious oil.

Way to go from a normal debate about nuclear energy straight to racist hatemongering, mate. Really show your true colours.

Anyway, no. I happen to be European. And white, since that apparently matters to you. Back on topic, I wouldn't consider tons of nuclear waste being dumped God knows where a "clean" form of energy.

[Free Missouri]

How is clean, safe, energy, that has only had ONE fatal release in almost 70 years of use and that has killed less people in it's entire history than Oil/Coal kill in a half-decade, harming the world?

Oh Wait, you're middle eastern (or at least support that idiotic medieval culture), you're obviously against anything that threatens your precious oil.

Way to go from a normal debate about nuclear energy straight to racist hatemongering, mate. Really show your true colours.

Anyway, no. I happen to be European. And white, since that apparently matters to you. Back on topic, I wouldn't consider tons of nuclear waste being dumped God knows where a "clean" form of energy.

"Dumped god knows where" That's where my inferences come from, only someone who fucking works in the oil business could so blindly hate nuclear power.

You mean being stored in facilities deep underground with concrete walls as thick if not thicker than the concrete walls used in containment buildings, a system in which absolutely NO ONE HAS DIED FROM ANY RELEASE WHAT-SO-FUCKING-EVER. Beyond that, in the VERY NEAR FUTURE, we will be able to take that used fuel out of the ground and use it EVEN MORE in Fast-Breeder reactors.