Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

AlphaRed

Some people say they keep the peace

Some people say one day they will kill us all

I understand Europe was a vicious place up until the invention of Nuclear weapons. Constant wars over hundreds of years, but now because we have Nuclear weapons we have to keep the peace and now as we all know we get along well with our European neighbours. They say it was Nuclear weapons that brought WW2 to an early end and even though it was devastating for Japan in the long run it saved many more lives. Nukes keep the peace.

On the other hand Nukes have the potential to wipe out the human race. Yes we always fought each other but we never had the potential to end it all with the push of a button. Nuclear weapons have created an arms race. Despite having nuclear weapons America seems intent on taking over the world and taking on Russia. They are focused on creating a missile defense shield to neutralize the Russians nuclear capabilities, maybe in the end nukes will not keep the peace but destroy us all.

catallus

Nukes are very bad things.

Boom_Bap

Nuke the whales.

iDave

Very ineffective in Independence Day.

Duggy747

When Skynet becomes self-aware then we'll be truly fúcked.

iwillhtfu

I notice Islamic State missed the memo maybe one of our neighbours with nuclear weapons could remind them.

Reoil

How the **** could they be good?

ScumLord

The global economy has probably done as much to maintain peace as anything else. We have Europe and Russia trading with each other despite the fact we're completely at odds and neither one wants to upset the balance because both have become pretty dependant on the money and resources they get from trading with each other.

We're too invested in each other and global trade, there isn't really any self sufficient country left in the world. If we want to keep our modern technologically advanced lifestyles we can't go to war anymore.

Harry Palmr

Good until they go off. A lot to be said for mutually assured destruction.

seamus

AlphaRed wrote: »

Some people say they keep the peace

What peace?

Europe is at peace, not because of nuclear weapons but because nobody wants to be at war.

There are still wars all over the world, involving countries who have nuclear weapons.

The bluff has been called, nobody will use nuclear weapons except if they're on the verge of losing a war on their own landmass.

At best it could be argued that nuclear weapons protects countries from invasion - but only if that country is already in possession of nuclear weapons.

If you're not, then you're **** out of luck and nuclear weapons do not protect you.

Calibos

Nukes are Good m'Kay!

Generic Dreadhead

They're great, some pretty decent ones on Done Deal if you know how to shop around, lot's of time wasters too though offering Anthrax instead

Skylinehead

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Nuke the whales.

Gotta nuke something...

Honestly, I'm not sure. Has the threat of nuclear war stopped large-scale conventional warfare? It's quite possible, although as mentioned it may well be economics that are causing that instead. Before World War 1/2 large-scale conflict in Europe was the norm, with France/Prussia/Britain/Austria/Russia at each others throats almost all of the time. But then there's the argument that European cooperation through the EU has put a stop to that instead.

Nucular Arms

Nucular Arms is the best.

RobertKK

Some historians argue there was no need for the destruction of life with the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki, as Japan had already decided to surrender and the Americans knew this.

They were not designed for good, they were designed to kill and cause fear.

anncoates

You know where you stood when it was just binary, antipodal, cartoon ideologies threatening each other with nukes.

All this dour, religiously-motivated nuclear stockpiling with no decent cultural tropes has just ruined all the fun.

Maximus Alexander

It's bad that they ever existed, but now that they exist, it's good to keep them around.

Elessar

Nukes don't keep the peace in Europe, the EU project does (that and 2 vicious world wars). Thanks to the EU we're all closer than ever, barriers have been taken down (figuratively).

With nuclear weapons already in existence the best thing to do is reduce the stockpiles to a minimum to keep the status quo between nuclear powers, no nation is going to fully give up all of their nuclear weapons trusting others would genuinely do the same.

The extremes the Soviets and Americans went to is frighting. The destructive power of just one SS-18 Satan missile was up to 500 times greater than that of the atomic bombs America used against Japan in 1945. Armed with ten nuclear warheads and with a range of up to almost 10,000 miles, experts say it is the deadliest and the heaviest ballistic missile in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njhI5HSO9VU

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Some historians argue there was no need for the destruction of life with the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki, as Japan had already decided to surrender and the Americans knew this.

Almost certainly untrue - the Japanese were fanatic in believing in the fight to the death. Look at Okinawa as an example, and you're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths on the American side alone, without even talking about civilians.

Irish Guitarist

I saw a documentary about Hiroshima a few years ago. When the bomb went off there was a man sitting on a wall. His 'shadow' is now permanently burned into the ground.

For some reason I thought that was the saddest part of the documentary. Just some ordinary man sitting on a wall minding his own business and then suddenly he's burned into the landscape forever.

catallus

Didn't Japan surrender the day after the Soviets declared war on them?

Corvo

We'll need em with the way the Russian's are going about their business

BoJack Horseman

I got an old one, but it didn't work.

I could have picked up a new one however I just couldn't resist that 50's retro charm.

(In general I'm ambivalent.
MAD has its uses).

Akrasia

There are only two scenarios when nukes are good
1. when we need to commit intergalactic genocide on the alien xenomorphs (nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure)
2. if we need to nudge a planet killing astroid off it's orbit so that it misses us and hits the xenomorphs planet instead.

god I hate those xenomorphs

I know they're not actually called xenomorphs in the movie

JupiterKid

They are monstrously destructive but that aspect has meant since Nagasaki no-one has used them. So in a way the help to keep the peace. As a child I was absolutely terrified of them and what they could do.

Calibos

No one ever said the MAD principle would stop Wars between non Nuclear powers or between Nuclear and Non Nuclear powers or Proxy Wars between Nuclear Powers. It was only ever about preventing WW3, ie. massive large scale conventional wars with 10's of millions of deaths and casualties between major powers.

astrofool

catallus wrote: »

Didn't Japan surrender the day after the Soviets declared war on them?

Even after Hiroshima the Japanese tried to work out how often the USA could manufacture and use such a bomb, and figured they could still fight on while taking a nuke every 4-6 weeks, the casualties from the bomb were not that great compared to what they were losing while fighting anyway. The entire nation was prepared for self-immolation rather than surrender.

The "surrender" they offered would have left them in control of large parts of Asia and left the current regime in charge.

Theboinkmaster

Nuclear weapons - like two lads standing waste deep is gasoline. One has 3 matches, the other has 4 :pac:

Junkyard Tom

The first alien says, "The dominant life forms on the earth planet have developed satellite-based nuclear weapons." The second alien, who looks exactly like the first, asks, "Are they an emerging intelligence?" The first alien says, "I don't think so, they have them aimed at themselves."

FrostyJack

Skylinehead wrote: »

Almost certainly untrue - the Japanese were fanatic in believing in the fight to the death. Look at Okinawa as an example, and you're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths on the American side alone, without even talking about civilians.

When Russia approached their borders the Japanese surrendered. There were more people killed with the fire bombing of the cities in a single night, than in the 2 atomic bombs separately.

The_Valeyard

We need nukes to plant inside the alien mothership once the computer virus drops their shields.

BillJ

Nucular, it's pronounced nucular

Discodog

If you are nervous of nukes then google how many are estimated to have gone missing :eek:

catallus

BillJ wrote: »

Nucular, it's pronounced nucular

Shaw dare.

entropi

catallus wrote: »

Shaw dare.

Say it right, Frenchie!!

They're great.. The war against communism after world war 2 would have been horrific without the prospect of mutual destruction. The countries involved in proxy wars obviously didn't benefit but it kept the kill count down.

_Brian

In fairness they're inanimate objects. It's the people who build them and point them at their neighbours that I'd consider bad.

B.A._Baracus

AlphaRed wrote: »

Some people say they keep the peace

Some people say one day they will kill us all....

I'd say both are correct.
Nuclear weapons have given the world peace (a loose word used in this context) as world war 3 could have kicked off decades ago. But nuclear weapons creates deterrence.

However, they exist so some country is going to use them one day in the future.

Akrasia

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I'd say both are correct.
Nuclear weapons have given the world peace (a loose word used in this context) as world war 3 could have kicked off decades ago. But nuclear weapons creates deterrence.

However, they exist so some country is going to use them one day in the future.

Which is better, 60 - 100 years of 'peace' followed by the nuclear apocolypse, or world war 3 resulting in a few 10s of millions of dead but the world doesn't end.

Anyway, it's irrelevant because we can't turn back the clock. The cat is out of the bag.

I'm not so worried about Nucular war as I am of some nutters releasing biological warfare. Nuclear weapons require a huge infrastructure to maintain them and they require very advanced rockets and guidance systems to deploy

A biological weapon is possibly within the grasp of any nutcase witha good education backed with enough money to fund a research lab.

If the likes of ISIS could re-engineer the flu virus so that it is more lethal they could cause enormous harm and disruption, and if they could specifically target genetic markers that are rare in their own gene pool but common in ours, then we could have a very serious problem on our hands.

sbsquarepants

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Good until they go off. A lot to be said for mutually assured destruction.

Eh, no there's not.
Ever more destructive weapons for everyone has never kept the peace, that's not what's keeping it now. War is practically always about money - there are easier ways of getting money than invading Poland, once there aren't - Poland better watch it's back. That's how it works.

Hoop66

Akrasia wrote: »

Which is better, 60 - 100 years of 'peace' followed by the nuclear apocolypse, or world war 3 resulting in a few 10s of millions of dead but the world doesn't end.

Anyway, it's irrelevant because we can't turn back the clock. The cat is out of the bag.

I'm not so worried about Nucular war as I am of some nutters releasing biological warfare. Nuclear weapons require a huge infrastructure to maintain them and they require very advanced rockets and guidance systems to deploy

A biological weapon is possibly within the grasp of any nutcase witha good education backed with enough money to fund a research lab.

If the likes of ISIS could re-engineer the flu virus so that it is more lethal they could cause enormous harm and disruption, and if they could specifically target genetic markers that are rare in their own gene pool but common in ours, then we could have a very serious problem on our hands.

I think it's more likely that a renegade group would be able to build, steal or buy a simple nuclear bomb, stick it in a shipping container and send it....wherever they like.

But, like you say, the cat's out of the bag now. So we''ll just have to hope.

catallus

Pfft!

Biological weapons is where it's at, anyway.

Akrasia

Hoop66 wrote: »

I think it's more likely that a renegade group would be able to build, steal or buy a simple nuclear bomb, stick it in a shipping container and send it....wherever they like.

But, like you say, the cat's out of the bag now. So we''ll just have to hope.

One nuclear bomb in the wrong hands is a terrifying thing but it would be a single event that could kill a few hundred thousand people at most. A biological weapon could kill millions, and if done properly, it could persist in the environment and become an ongoing threat for years to come.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Questioning wether weapons are good or bad is quite worrying to be honest.

Weapons are bad, there shouldn't even be a discussion about it.

nathang20

Unless you have gathered a certain amount of people to join your "commune" and have equal desires of being exterminated by means of immediate vaporisation, then off ya go! As usual, the others are left to pick up the pieces, so to speak.

IrishTrajan

AlphaRed wrote: »

Some people say they keep the peace

Some people say one day they will kill us all

I understand Europe was a vicious place up until the invention of Nuclear weapons. Constant wars over hundreds of years, but now because we have Nuclear weapons we have to keep the peace and now as we all know we get along well with our European neighbours. They say it was Nuclear weapons that brought WW2 to an early end and even though it was devastating for Japan in the long run it saved many more lives. Nukes keep the peace.

On the other hand Nukes have the potential to wipe out the human race. Yes we always fought each other but we never had the potential to end it all with the push of a button. Nuclear weapons have created an arms race. Despite having nuclear weapons America seems intent on taking over the world and taking on Russia. They are focused on creating a missile defense shield to neutralize the Russians nuclear capabilities, maybe in the end nukes will not keep the peace but destroy us all.

There are several types of nuclear weapons (tactical and strategic being the most notable: tactical are smaller nukes used on the battlefield against conventional military forces, strategic against, well, strategic centres such as missile silos, aircraft carriers, cities). In the instance of "MAD" only strategic nukes are truly applicable. Tactical nukes deliver to small a payload to destroy cities or cause that many civilian deaths (like any weapon, they can still cause civilian death).

In the post-ww2 era, we had several nations vying for control of "the bomb" to become an untouchable force. Russia gave it to China and India, the US extended their nuclear umbrella over Europe (Britain and France began indigenous nuclear programs, I believe). As a result, neither the USSR or NATO came into conflict with one another, saving potentially millions of lives. The reason being nuclear weapons can cause tremendous damage. The USSR believed they could survive, indeed win, a brief nuclear exchange with NATO. Their doctrine dictated that the USSR use nuclear weapons on Venice (as a warning to France, and to cover their flank), and the Low Countries (as a warning to Britain) whilst relying upon conventional military forces to breach the "Fulda gap" at the Rhine, and sue for peace. However, this was never entirely feasible, as France retained the "soft-to-hard" doctrine where they would target civilian infrastructure with their full nuclear might if any of their assets, civilian or military, were targeted by nuclear weapons. Britain, with the Polaris, also retained a significant "second-strike" capability. That is, if they were attacked, their submarines would allow them to reply with nuclear force after the fact. All of this with the US' nuclear forces (bomb delivery in Europe, with nuclear weapons stationed in Germany, Italy and Turkey [Belgium?]), submarine based "second-strike" and US-based ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities. Whilst the USSR had more nuclear warheads in total (and the largest ever nuclear bomb: the Tsar Bomb), their missile silos were not designed to withstand strikes against them (the US believed nuclear strikes against enemy nuclear assets could neutralize the threat of a nuclear holocaust), whereas (I believe) the US' could survive such strikes, depending upon the size of the payload.

So, yes. Nuclear weapons were incredibly destructive, but most strategic (the really big ones) nukes were designed to target the other side's strategic nukes, leaving theatre/tactical nukes for employment against conventional forces. Thus, MAD was never truly applicable (although if they had targeted cities, it could have been, absolutely).

In the modern day, we have several nuclear powers. Britain (who operate US- delivery systems, after scrapping the Polaris), France (whose nuclear warheads are made in Germany), the US (who retain a nuclear triad), Russia (who maintain a nuclear triad), China (who helped Pakistan develop nukes), India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Iran is an aspiring nuclear power.

There has only been one recorded instance of war between nuclear armed powers (India vs Pakistan, "Kargil War"). Neither side fired nuclear weapons.

So, from history, the acquisition of nuclear weapons has saved more lives than it has taken.

What is most interesting is that after the USSR break up, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world (after the US and Russia), which they handed over to Russia in the Budapest Memorandum. In return, Ukraine was to receive guarantees from Russia, the US and UK that their territorial integrity and economic viability was to be maintained. Russia has violated this treaty twice within the last two years (the annexation of Crimea, and before that they used their oil to dictate policy change [like in every country they sell to], and by embargoing Ukraine's dairy exports). The US and UK have not intervened because Russia has nuclear weapons.

That is why Britain is retaining (and indeed upgrading) its nuclear deterrent. That is why France maintains its own nuclear forces. That is why Iran desires a nuclear weapon, and why Israel pursued theirs.

Are they good? No, of course not. They are incredibly destructive weapons. Are they a necessary evil? Of course they are. Even the Green party in the UK, the party most adamant for nuclear disarmament said it would be "decades" before they actually implemented policy change on their nuclear weapons stance.

I for one hope Britain renews its nuclear program.

AlphaRed

I bet Ukraine is wishing they never gave up their nukes now.

IrishTrajan

AlphaRed wrote: »

I bet Ukraine is wishing they never gave up their nukes now.

Haha I don't think they'd be in much of a state to use them. Even if they kept the nukes, they probably wouldn't have been able to maintain them or use them. Their military is in a state of disrepair, and the nukes were required to be handed over to Moscow in return for independence, I think.

Their real mistake was not running straight into the arms of NATO/EU like the other former Warsaw Pact members

hatrickpatrick

Good but only if every nation has them.
Most conflicts aren't caused by power, but power imbalances. If everyone had more or less guaranteed destruction if they f*cked with anyone else, I'd imagine the number of countries f*cking with other countries would decline to virtually zero overnight.

IrishTrajan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Good but only if every nation has them.
Most conflicts aren't caused by power, but power imbalances. If everyone had more or less guaranteed destruction if they f*cked with anyone else, I'd imagine the number of countries f*cking with other countries would decline to virtually zero overnight.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons makes it more likely that radical elements of society may get their hands on them. Dirty bombs are the most likely, which is why they're left at the bottom of the ocean in metre-thick containers of steel.

It's why the British retain the use of lethal force to protect their weapons and rely upon one of their most well-trained forces (roughly 800 Royal Marines under 43 Cdo) and MoD personnel when they are transporting warheads for maintenance.