Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion

[Roskian Federation]

In my opinion, the United States, Russian Federation, and People's Republic of China could safely defend their interests with about 300 nuclear weapons each, instead of over three thousand for the first two, which not only severely lowers the costs of maintaining said weapons, but also prevents the chance of total nuclear annihilation of everything on earth.

[Benevolent One]

Good. I'm glad at least you get the rest of it. However you have no argument for my point other than a pathetic "simply." Not too impressive, so stop when you get to where your education is inadequate.

So, as I understand it, your argument with IR is whether or not a nuclear war would be a limited exchange between countries or nonsensical arm-flailing event in which everyone just decides to push the "F*** the world" button and launch at e'er'body.
Because it sounds like you're arguing for the second one, which makes no sense.

If NK nukes the Ronald Reagan, you're saying the US is going to go about retaliating against NK, China, and Russia all at the same time, just for funzies. You're saying that if The India-Pakistan tinderbox lights off in promptcritical neutron mushroom clouds, the U.K. And Brazil are also doomed for some arbitrary reason.
Am I reading that right?

In reality, let's go back to August 1914. Archduke Ferdinand is assassinated. Sides lineup, shit starts happening and everybody's at war. Luckily no nuclear weapons then. Also in reality, let's go back to October 1962. JFK and Khrushchev barely were able to keep their military establishments from accidentally setting off World War III. This was before any missiles were launched and thank goodness they weren't. It's human nature to panic and to miscalculate. These events are inevitable once nuclear weapons are introduced into a situation. When a conflict starts, there will be reactions, under reactions and overreactions. Use of nuclear weapons as an overreaction. Overreactions will likely be met with other overreactions. The "use them or lose them" mindset is well-known and for good reason. I am sure there are plenty of times when leaders of the US, China, Russia/ USSR, India and Pakistan have wished to use their nuclear weapons on an enemy. However, they have been restrained because of the potential consequences. That potential is total catastrophe. There is nothing arbitrary about any of this reasoning. Life in hell sucks, so why create hell? Fortunately, and so far, everyone gets it. Unfortunately and eventually given enough time, some lunatic will become the leader of a state which has major nuclear capacities. That is probably what the CIA worries about more than anything else. You can either believe it or not. I, for one do.

We, as a species, have been erring on the side of caution with the use of nuclear weapons since their initial use as a weapon against human beings in August 1945. The results taught us to do otherwise. To introduce nuclear weaponry into any conflict is reckless and courting disaster. It would be a decision made by lunatic. Only a nuclear retaliatory attack would be in any way acceptable, and even that statement is somewhat questionable because it leads to the "use them or lose them scenario." However, the decision to retaliate against a nuclear strike by an enemy has probably been made far in advance of any such attack. So that is probably a moot point.

That is my position on the subject.

[Dooom35796821595]

In my opinion, the United States, Russian Federation, and People's Republic of China could safely defend their interests with about 300 nuclear weapons each, instead of over three thousand for the first two, which not only severely lowers the costs of maintaining said weapons, but also prevents the chance of total nuclear annihilation of everything on earth.

I belive that China does have about 300.

[Deanson]

Obviously opposed to their use, but their necessity must be recognized. MAD is absolutely a powerful deterrent and if the US for example didn't have nukes then there would be nothing stopping someone from completely wiping us with their own arsenal out if they really wanted to do so.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Obviously opposed to their use, but their necessity must be recognized. MAD is absolutely a powerful deterrent and if the US for example didn't have nukes then there would be nothing stopping someone from completely wiping us with their own arsenal out if they really wanted to do so.

Agreed. They are a necessary evil.

[Benevolent One]

Obviously opposed to their use, but their necessity must be recognized. MAD is absolutely a powerful deterrent and if the US for example didn't have nukes then there would be nothing stopping someone from completely wiping us with their own arsenal out if they really wanted to do so.

On the bright side, nuclear weaponry was developed in the time frame near the end of a war by only one nation, the USA. Imagine had these things been developed during peacetime by several competing nations while tensions heightened between them and war broke out without ever having had the results of Hiroshima/Nagasaki to ponder at the end of WW2? Even so, the US & USSR almost went and did it in 1962. There is good reason Andrei Sakharov went from helping lead the Soviet nuclear program to a an activist for disarmament, peace and human rights. There was also the monstrous Tsar Bomba which was tested just short of one year before the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Bios/Sakharov.shtml

These weapons aren't going to go away entirely any time soon. They would have to be replaced with something that massively kills the enemy quickly and without the enormous blast damage and the radio active side effects on living cells and DNA. Until then, we will have the Nukes and this standoff.

[Pharthan]

In reality, let's go back to August 1914.... [snip]

That is my position on the subject.

Now, this might come as a complete surprise to you, but, that was a century ago. We aren't in 1914. It's 2016. We have a remarkably better ability to communicate and wars, as humanity knew them then, are drastically different.
Humans will overreact, yes, but the entire geopolitical situation has changed. We don't have clear-cut lines like we did then. Heck, in the recent war with ISIS there were Al Qaida forces calling in air strikes on ISIS from the US Navy.

Even then, going to war wasn't an instantaneous kneejerk reaction like pressing a button. This isn't Hollywood or "The End of the World". It isn't going to just be "fire the missiles!"
It's going to be, "hey, North Korea just launched some nukes and destroyed the Ronald Reagan Strike Group, Tokyo, and Seoul."
"Okay, send everything we have and destroy every military asset they have."
"Oh, the Japanese and South Koreans already have."
"Oh, okay, good, well that settles that."

Use of a nuclear weapon is not at all always an overreaction, you seem to be misunderstanding that. There are very much tactical uses for nuclear warheads, but everyone's afraid of exactly what you're talking about. This is something that a large number of people have thought of far more than you or I have, and the general response in modern times is to not overreact, we just got all caught up in the Cold War notion of "we could destroy everything," and that doesn't mean we will.
That very notion is why the use of nuclear weapons, provided it isn't a launch en-masse, won't be responded to by a launch en-masse. That defies the nature of war. You don't respond to a sniper with a MOAB or a Tank Company, and you don't respond to a use of a tactical nuke with a world-ending en masse launch. That just doesn't make sense. Like, seriously, suggesting it does betrays your complete lack of military knowledge. Fortunately, we have much smarter people in power.

[Bojikami]

In the interests of the preservation of world peace, yes.

[SD_Film Artists]

Obviously opposed to their use, but their necessity must be recognized. MAD is absolutely a powerful deterrent and if the US for example didn't have nukes then there would be nothing stopping someone from completely wiping us with their own arsenal out if they really wanted to do so.

Agreed. They are a necessary evil.

Exactly.

And on a different but related issue, it does appear as a very weak argument when people say "America doesn't have the right to tell other countries not to have nuclear weapons as America has previously used them on Japan"; that kind of argument ignores the fact that America has had access to nuclear weapons and hasn't used them since 1945. If I was a car insurance company, I'd much rather trust someone with 1 claim in 70 years* than a heavily-drinking 18 yr old thrill-seeker with 0 claims.

*discounting the fact they'd be around 90 yrs old.

[Imperializt Russia]

Obviously opposed to their use, but their necessity must be recognized. MAD is absolutely a powerful deterrent and if the US for example didn't have nukes then there would be nothing stopping someone from completely wiping us with their own arsenal out if they really wanted to do so.

On the bright side, nuclear weaponry was developed in the time frame near the end of a war by only one nation, the USA. Imagine had these things been developed during peacetime by several competing nations while tensions heightened between them and war broke out without ever having had the results of Hiroshima/Nagasaki to ponder at the end of WW2? Even so, the US & USSR almost went and did it in 1962. There is good reason Andrei Sakharov went from helping lead the Soviet nuclear program to a an activist for disarmament, peace and human rights. There was also the monstrous Tsar Bomba which was tested just short of one year before the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Bios/Sakharov.shtml

These weapons aren't going to go away entirely any time soon. They would have to be replaced with something that massively kills the enemy quickly and without the enormous blast damage and the radio active side effects on living cells and DNA. Until then, we will have the Nukes and this standoff.

Tsar Bomba is not a practical weapon system and was never intended to be. It was a test bed for demonstrating the principle with a thermonuclear weapon, that it can be scaled up to an arbitrary yield by strapping more stages to it.
Today, most weapon systems are sub-megaton, and I'm fairly confident in thinking there are no weapons above 5Mt yield in current service.

There is nothing that can replace the weapon effects of a nuclear device.
However, in terms of utility against targets, tactical nuclear weapons have been removed from many roles, with the advent of high-precision conventional cruise missiles, and other PGM.
The radiation burst of tactical nuclear devices was actually seen as a beneficial quality, as when used against sensitive electronic systems like radar sites, even a miss would be likely to cripple or incapacitate the station.

[Benevolent 1]

In reality, let's go back to August 1914.... [snip]

That is my position on the subject.

Now, this might come as a complete surprise to you, but, that was a century ago. We aren't in 1914. It's 2016. We have a remarkably better ability to communicate and wars, as humanity knew them then, are drastically different.
Humans will overreact, yes, but the entire geopolitical situation has changed. We don't have clear-cut lines like we did then. Heck, in the recent war with ISIS there were Al Qaida forces calling in air strikes on ISIS from the US Navy.

Even then, going to war wasn't an instantaneous kneejerk reaction like pressing a button. This isn't Hollywood or "The End of the World". It isn't going to just be "fire the missiles!"
It's going to be, "hey, North Korea just launched some nukes and destroyed the Ronald Reagan Strike Group, Tokyo, and Seoul."
"Okay, send everything we have and destroy every military asset they have."
"Oh, the Japanese and South Koreans already have."
"Oh, okay, good, well that settles that."

Use of a nuclear weapon is not at all always an overreaction, you seem to be misunderstanding that. There are very much tactical uses for nuclear warheads, but everyone's afraid of exactly what you're talking about. This is something that a large number of people have thought of far more than you or I have, and the general response in modern times is to not overreact, we just got all caught up in the Cold War notion of "we could destroy everything," and that doesn't mean we will.
That very notion is why the use of nuclear weapons, provided it isn't a launch en-masse, won't be responded to by a launch en-masse. That defies the nature of war. You don't respond to a sniper with a MOAB or a Tank Company, and you don't respond to a use of a tactical nuke with a world-ending en masse launch. That just doesn't make sense. Like, seriously, suggesting it does betrays your complete lack of military knowledge. Fortunately, we have much smarter people in power.

You take yourself far too seriously and others far too lightly as reflected in your "this might come as a complete surprise to you, 1914 was a century ago comment."

So that's your misunderstanding. Maybe take a course in Biology and then Genetics and figure out how that combines with Nuclear Weapons. Like, seriously, helmet head.

[Vorond]

I just wish my nation had some.

[Llamalandia]

Just saying, but how old your college is really doesn't matter.

You've also wildly misjudged my position here. A position largely against nuclear arms, though believing that the current political climate does not merit total disarmament.

Yes, a nuclear war would be horrendous. It would be catastrophic. These points are without question.
But it would not be the global, world-ending extinction you suggest it to be, especially with the drastic reduction in arsenal sizes over the last forty years.

Well certainly the world would likely go on, at least in that no all life wouldn't wouldnt be wiped out. Hell humanity would probably survive as well, though civilization would be far less...ummmm developed I guess would be the word. I mean certainly first world nations would be utterly devastated, and it would likely take survivors time to adapt if they could adapt at all to a world with a science of modern infrastructure. And of course it depends on how large any nuclear exchange would actually be.

[Llamalandia]

Ummmmm....,,,,wow. Just wow. I mean, ok, but that is largely because people don't freaking interfere with it, and maybe some degree of increased mutations. But yeah, wow, that's an interesting spin on nuclear meltdown.

Do you think the point of that statement was "the Chernobyl disaster was a good thing"?

Yes, it is because of lack of human interference. No, it is not because of radiation-based mutations.
The highest concentration of Eurasian wolves live in the zone, something like 300 last time they tried to study it.

The Korean DMZ is also a quite dense and diverse biosophere, due to the lack of human interference.

Well obviously I was not being entirely serious. Just thought it was kinda funny that the nuclear, I mean leave it to nuclear physicist to point out e silver lining to Chernobyl.

[Pharthan]

You take yourself far too seriously and others far too lightly as reflected in your "this might come as a complete surprise to you, 1914 was a century ago comment."

So that's your misunderstanding. Maybe take a course in Biology and then Genetics and figure out how that combines with Nuclear Weapons. Like, seriously, helmet head.

You mean like a CMR course with a specific focus on the biological effects on radiation, then additional studies in LNT and Radiation Hormesis? Uh, yeah, done that.

I take myself seriously (though most of that was more meant in humor, even if lightly at your expense, mostly because you take yourself to seriously when arguing against nuclear experts), because, like IR, I have a pretty firm background in nuclear physics, and I'm probably one of the few people here who've had to worry about a nuke actually being launched at them, at least in recent history, since we might have some people old enough to remember Cold War days.

That being said, my point wasn't to point out the obvious as far as date, it was to point out the many changes in military and political stances. We don't line up and take sides like we used to. Just because we're in conflict with Syria, ISIS doesn't mean that Russia can't like Syria but also hate ISIS. Just because we want to make nice with China, and China wants to make nice with North Korea, doesn't mean that we don't have to like North Korea. Just because one country nukes another country doesn't mean we have to get into an East v. West megawar. That's not how things work. There may have been a time in which that was a serious concern. I don't know. I'd like to think we would have been wiser than that in the height of the Cold War, but that might not be the case.

[Benevolent 1]

You take yourself far too seriously and others far too lightly as reflected in your "this might come as a complete surprise to you, 1914 was a century ago comment."

So that's your misunderstanding. Maybe take a course in Biology and then Genetics and figure out how that combines with Nuclear Weapons. Like, seriously, helmet head.

You mean like a CMR course with a specific focus on the biological effects on radiation, then additional studies in LNT and Radiation Hormesis? Uh, yeah, done that.

I take myself seriously (though most of that was more meant in humor, even if lightly at your expense, mostly because you take yourself to seriously when arguing against nuclear experts), because, like IR, I have a pretty firm background in nuclear physics, and I'm probably one of the few people here who've had to worry about a nuke actually being launched at them, at least in recent history, since we might have some people old enough to remember Cold War days.

That being said, my point wasn't to point out the obvious as far as date, it was to point out the many changes in military and political stances. We don't line up and take sides like we used to. Just because we're in conflict with Syria, ISIS doesn't mean that Russia can't like Syria but also hate ISIS. Just because we want to make nice with China, and China wants to make nice with North Korea, doesn't mean that we don't have to like North Korea. Just because one country nukes another country doesn't mean we have to get into an East v. West megawar. That's not how things work. There may have been a time in which that was a serious concern. I don't know. I'd like to think we would have been wiser than that in the height of the Cold War, but that might not be the case.

I completely agree with those three red words wholeheartedly! (the rest is neither here nor there) That's why using nukes is a stupid and dangerous idea altogether.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT! So that removes it as any kind of viable military option other than as a deterrent.

Look. *lights come on*
Hey, I think they're closing the nuclear theater.
*doors close and are locked*

Thank God.

[Pharthan]

You mean like a CMR course with a specific focus on the biological effects on radiation, then additional studies in LNT and Radiation Hormesis? Uh, yeah, done that.

I take myself seriously (though most of that was more meant in humor, even if lightly at your expense, mostly because you take yourself to seriously when arguing against nuclear experts), because, like IR, I have a pretty firm background in nuclear physics, and I'm probably one of the few people here who've had to worry about a nuke actually being launched at them, at least in recent history, since we might have some people old enough to remember Cold War days.

That being said, my point wasn't to point out the obvious as far as date, it was to point out the many changes in military and political stances. We don't line up and take sides like we used to. Just because we're in conflict with Syria, ISIS doesn't mean that Russia can't like Syria but also hate ISIS. Just because we want to make nice with China, and China wants to make nice with North Korea, doesn't mean that we don't have to like North Korea. Just because one country nukes another country doesn't mean we have to get into an East v. West megawar. That's not how things work. There may have been a time in which that was a serious concern. I don't know. I'd like to think we would have been wiser than that in the height of the Cold War, but that might not be the case.

I completely agree with those three red words wholeheartedly! (the rest is neither here nor there) That's why using nukes is a stupid and dangerous idea altogether.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT! So that removes it as any kind of viable military option other than as a deterrent.

Look. *lights come on*
Hey, I think they're closing the nuclear theater.
*doors close and are locked*

Thank God.

Way to cherry pick to suit your needs, especially considering I was talking about Cold War nuclear warfare instead of modern.

[Benevolent 1]

I completely agree with those three red words wholeheartedly! (the rest is neither here nor there) That's why using nukes is a stupid and dangerous idea altogether.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT! So that removes it as any kind of viable military option other than as a deterrent.

Look. *lights come on*
Hey, I think they're closing the nuclear theater.
*doors close and are locked*

Thank God.

Way to cherry pick to suit your needs, especially considering I was talking about Cold War nuclear warfare instead of modern.

The thread is called "Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion."

So just WTF do you expect here, people to ki$$ your a$$ over fucking nukes? That's my opinion and I already know yours. Neither seem to be changing, dude, can you tell? So take it up with somebody else.

*snickers*

[Pharthan]

The thread is called "Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion."

So just WTF do you expect here, people to ki$$ your a$$ over fucking nukes? That's my opinion and I already know yours. Neither seem to be changing, dude, can you tell? So take it up with somebody else.

*snickers*

What I expect is for you to not take my words out of context and say, "Oh, maybe I was a dick for not recognizing that this guy actually has a thorough education in what I just assumed he didn't."

*snickers*

[Indo-Malaysia]

Way to cherry pick to suit your needs, especially considering I was talking about Cold War nuclear warfare instead of modern.

The thread is called "Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion."

So just WTF do you expect here, people to ki$$ your a$$ over fucking nukes? That's my opinion and I already know yours. Neither seem to be changing, dude, can you tell? So take it up with somebody else.

*snickers*

Welcome to NSG.

[The Trump Galactical Empire]

Nuclear weapons is what prevented the USSR from invading Western Europe. We should keep them incase some other great power has suspicious plans.

[Implacable Death]

Nuclear weapons is what prevented the USSR from invading Western Europe. We should keep them incase some other great power has suspicious plans.

Not unlikely. Only a few years ago the Polish government released a Warsaw-pact plan that showed what the NATO was projected to do if the Soviet tanks did come a-rollin' over the border. Basically, NATO postulated to be willing to pretty much nuke half of Poland in order to stop reinforcements from reaching East-Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

[Imperializt Russia]

Nuclear weapons is what prevented the USSR from invading Western Europe. We should keep them incase some other great power has suspicious plans.

Not unlikely. Only a few years ago the Polish government released a Warsaw-pact plan that showed what the NATO was projected to do if the Soviet tanks did come a-rollin' over the border. Basically, NATO postulated to be willing to pretty much nuke half of Poland in order to stop reinforcements from reaching East-Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

To be fair, East Germany (and West, for that matter) weren't looking too hot in that scenario except in the Kelvin scale.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Not unlikely. Only a few years ago the Polish government released a Warsaw-pact plan that showed what the NATO was projected to do if the Soviet tanks did come a-rollin' over the border. Basically, NATO postulated to be willing to pretty much nuke half of Poland in order to stop reinforcements from reaching East-Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

To be fair, East Germany (and West, for that matter) weren't looking too hot in that scenario except in the Kelvin scale.

The rest of the world would have been quite cold for a century or so, so it really all would have balanced out, which is great unless you happen to be a field of crops, a sunscreen company, a large herbivore, a large carnivore, a human, or a politician.

[Indo-Malaysia]

To be fair, East Germany (and West, for that matter) weren't looking too hot in that scenario except in the Kelvin scale.

The rest of the world would have been quite cold for a century or so, so it really all would have balanced out, which is great unless you happen to be a field of crops, a sunscreen company, a large herbivore, a large carnivore, a human, or a politician.

#CockroachLivesAgain