If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

Nuclear weapons. Yay or nay

  • 05-08-2022 1:08am
    Registered Users Posts: 20,743 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    Were the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament right or wrong?


    One thing I'll add is that no plausible war game scenario involving conflict between Nuclear armed states hasn't ended in MAD


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,463 ✭✭✭✭ Strumms

    They were wrong quite simply because it was never going to be achievable…

    Nuclear weapons experts estimate that the world’s known nine nuclear states who are China, France, India, *Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States between them have around 13,000 nuclear warheads in total… that’s ‘known’ nuclear states…

    who disarms first ?

    *Israel have dozens of nuclear weapons but don’t officially admit to being a nuclear power…they are known as it’s an open secret.

    can you imagine that shîtshow of a negotiation ? Trying to get all the above to disarm ?

    never happening would be my thinking….

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,025 ✭✭✭✭ y0ssar1an22

    let south africa have them back.

    what you can do? nothing, only hope saner minds prevail.

    there are 3 world leaders: one weak, one dying, one angry.

    tis like rock paper and scissors.

  • Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭ chuchuchu

    Having nuclear weapons would be an excellent deterrent from been invaded, if Ukraine had these weapons there would be no invasion, same for Libya's Gaddafi.

    I remember at the start of the Ukraine invasion, Putin made a clear threat that if the west got involved he would use them. So they are not only a defensive weapon.

    Its only resonable now that more countries have them, as you cant rely on your friends to defend you, the Budapest Memorandum isnt worth the paper its written on.

    And unfotunately if more countries have them, then there is more likelihood of a nuclear war.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭ herdquitter

    CND, I would be had Eastern Bloc connections.

    But anyway, the genie is out of the box, it's not going to be put back in.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭ Jinglejangle69

    Whatever about climate change, nukes will wipe us out before melting icecaps.

    Wouldn’t say it’s too far away.

  • Advertisement

  • I'm more worried about Biological weapons than Nuclear. The fear and knowledge of retaliation regarding nuclear weapons is well known, but biological weapons can be used without being noticed immediately, and can establish/spread quickly. An engineered Ebola virus could wipe out population centres quite quickly.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭ rob316

    If you look at the last century, nuclear weapons have actually ensured peace. Russia or China can't launch one without NATO launching one, that's how it works. Its a deterrent for war due to unimaginable destruction they would cause to both sides, no one wins.

    I don't think its a bad thing more countries having them, places like Iran and North Korea want them for defense from a US invasion. I don't think any dictator or rogue state is mad enough to use one.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,979 ✭✭✭✭ thebaz

    Weapons that can blow up the world or leave decades of devastation , good ???

    I'm old eneogh to remember Chernobyl , we actually need CND more than ever , many people agressivly shouting for War on a keyboard, have never been in war , and no nothing of the reality and devastation of war .

  • Registered Users Posts: 75,873 ✭✭✭✭ Atlantic Dawn

    Something like 5 missiles per country would be grand, having hundreds takes the fun out if it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,743 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    There have been way too many instances of nuclear weapons almost being launched by accident. or security at nuclear weapons depot being so poor that a pizza delivery person was able to access them, or an attempt to run a routine test ended up requiring a Russian official to disobey an apparent launch order to prevent a nuclear exchange... Then there was the cuban missile crisis, the tensions between Pakistan and India and China, North Korea's shenanigans, the Israelis who could do anything if threatened by their neighbours (they already bombed a Iranian nuclear power station)....

    Nuclear may have saved some lives through preventing direct conflict between US and Russia in the 2nd half of the 2oth century, but we've been living on borrowed time. if more countries felt the need to have a nuclear deterrent, we could end up back in proliferation territory where the chances of nuclear exchanges go up exponentially, through recklessness, hubris, or just plain old mechanical failures

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,141 ✭✭✭ amacca

    I remember that one where the Russian official disobeyed the launch was on a UFO type programme which I was taking with a grain of salt on the history channel

    Said it coincided with UFO activity....I presumed it was a malfunction of dome sort

    Terrifying given the probable chain of events if it had been launched.....also remember stories of several suitcase dirty nukes unaccounted for after the collapse of the old soviet Union

    But like previous poster said, cats out of the bag/Pandora box has been opened...I don't think many countries will be persuaded to give up their big sticks....

  • If I remember that incident correctly, the issue was caused by high altitude clouds. That confused a satellite used for early warning of incoming missile attacks, fortunately for us the system reported a low number of incoming missiles and the Russian commander correctly deducted that any incoming nuclear missile strike would involve hundreds of missiles so he ordered the warning to be ignored.

  • Posts: 0 Eden Rapid Cod

    Once some body has them, every body should have them. WW3 would have been in 1960s without nuclear

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,965 ✭✭✭✭ wotzgoingon

    I don't think it is right that some countries can have them and others not. Lets go in and bomb the sh*t out of Iraq as they have weapons of mass destruction. Great way to gather the dumb publics support if you use that line. reminds me of the South Park episode where they go hunting and shout it's coming right for me while the animal did not and the uncle says you have to say that before you kill the animal.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,414 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below

    If you're a leader with brown skin...essential.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,971 ✭✭✭ SeanW

    I used to be against nuclear proliferation but a couple of things have changed my mind somewhat.

    1) The fact that an increasing amount of bad actors have nukes. North Korea has them and Iran likely will have them this decade, in addition to their allies Russia and China that are both committing genocide as we speak. No reason that democracies should have no nukes if dictatorships that threaten them do.

    2) Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This showed two things: firstly that not only should an attack by a dictatorship against a free people be considered a matter of when, not if, but that this attack should not only be totally unprovoked, but also in violation of every international law and norm. Not only has Russia proven genocidal intent, but their actions have followed on from this committing in my estimation 4 of the 5 possible actions indicating genocide. Not only this but the Russians have descended to the level of nuclear terrorists by attacking both the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plants and using both as nuclear shields for their artillery and other military bases and materiel. The only question in my mind is who is next. Taiwan? Moldova? South Korea? The Baltic States? Who might the mullahs of Iran have a quarrel with?

    If nuclear weapons allows small democracies to protect their people against this kind of savage barbarity, post 24 Feb 2022, I think it needs to be considered. Time and time again throughout history, a stance of "we want nothing but to be left alone" has not protected people. In some cases a people that don't want to be enslaved or destroyed have to take the stance of "leave us alone - or else!" and the "or else!" part must be sufficiently dissuasive.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭ 85603

    We'll find out on the day that Vladimir's doctor tells him he's got a month left.

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,965 ✭✭✭✭ wotzgoingon

    Why does the Ukraine war change your mind when people in Palestine have been victims for many many years did that not sway you or what about the people of Yemen? Iraq, Afghanistan they not sway you either?

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,949 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato

    Ukraine used to have nuclear weapons, it gave them up on the basis of a guarantee from ruSSia that turned out to be worthless.

    Defund Alcohol Action Ireland

  • Advertisement

  • They gave them up because they didn't have the launch codes and secondly they were too poor to afford to maintain them and lastly Russia had a much bigger army so would have invaded and taken them back if Ukraine refused to hand them over peaceful.

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,949 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato

    ruSSia would have invaded if they didn't give them up? But they did give them up, and they still got invaded.

    Defund Alcohol Action Ireland