Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

BillJ wrote: »

Nucular, it's pronounced nucular

Shaw dare.

Pfft!

Biological weapons is where it's at, anyway.

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.

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 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 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.