Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

AlphaRed · 11-05-2015 09:31PM

Hoop66 wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous post which shows a profound ignorance of Iran and its ambitions.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. Sorry I didn't meticulously research Iran before I post that lighthearted comment

Reiver · 12-05-2015 08:23PM

What is a "good weapon"?

One that kills/destroys? I'd say they're pretty good by that standard alright.

What weapon was ever designed for good?

Lot of ****ty moralising on this.

RayM · 12-05-2015 09:18PM

Every nuclear explosion since 1945:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

Spoiler: It gets really interesting around 1962.

Reiver · 12-05-2015 09:31PM

Interestingly enough I think one of the French tests in the Sahara occurred only because they were afraid mutineers in Algeria would be able to get their hands on it.

Dick phelan · 12-05-2015 10:05PM

I think there good, i think in a weird way they keep some level of order between the major countries in the world, they are the reason i don't ever see a full scale world war between the world's major powers. You see it with Russia now, perhaps because of Nuclear Weapons America and other's haven't launched military action.

NotYourYear20 · 12-05-2015 11:02PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

Good, in the sense Russia can use them to keep the Yanks and their NATO expansionist allies in check

Aongus Von Bismarck · 12-05-2015 11:13PM

The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy by David Hoffman is a fantastic book about the race for nuclear supremacy, the blind fear this race eventually created in even trigger happy leaders of the US and the USA, and how the ramifications of the development of this relatively simple technology has had profound influence on modern geopolitics.

It's a great read, and far more nuanced that some of the drivel spouted on this thread so far.

fly_agaric · 12-05-2015 11:44PM

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy by David Hoffman is a fantastic book about the race for nuclear supremacy, the blind fear this race eventually created in even trigger happy leaders of the US and the USA, and how the ramifications of the development of this relatively simple technology has had profound influence on modern geopolitics.

It's a great read, and far more nuanced that some of the drivel spouted on this thread so far.

I wouldn't have said its "relatively simple" technology, especially if you add all the support apparatus to effectively deliver them (icbm launchers, ideally submarines and a fleet of bombers too). Creating one is still beyond the reach of alot of (most) states and no non-state group who might want them to cause havoc (e.g. Al Qaeda) has managed to make one either.

Nuclear weapons have had a chilling effect on direct conflict between the big powers since WW2, but were still only talking 60-70 years.
Whose to say in the long term there will not be an accident, an act of stupidity or malice that triggers a nuclear exchange.

The technology is getting more widely available as time passes (map above illustrates that nicely), moving beyond full control of the big powers so I'd say some sort of f-up is probably inevitable in a world of competing nation states (some unstable) and weak global institutions etc.

The weapons are so devastating that proliferation (a natural consequence of every other sort of advance in weaponry throughout history) is very disturbing.

IrishTrajan · 12-05-2015 11:56PM

fly_agaric wrote: »

Nuclear weapons have had a chilling effect on direct conflict between the big powers since WW2, but were still only talking 60-70 years.
Whose to say in the long term there will not be an accident, an act of stupidity or malice that triggers a nuclear exchange.

The technology is getting more widely available as time passes (map above illustrates that nicely), moving beyond full control of the big powers so I'd say some sort of f-up is probably inevitable in a world of competing nation states (some unstable) and weak global institutions etc.

The weapons are so devastating that proliferation (a natural consequence of every other sort of advance in weaponry throughout history) is very disturbing.

We've already seen a war between two parties (the Kargil War, between India and Pakistan) who had nuclear weapons and a long running feud. Both sides knew that to fire nuclear weapons was suicide, so neither of them did. The nuclear weapon is more of an ultimate deterrent than an employable asset. To use one means becoming a world pariah and the target of every other nuke on the table.

The NPT is designed to stop the spread of such technology. I find the fact that Iran is acquiring them and the only deal is "freezing" the progress for a decade rather unnerving. I would probably be more in favour of the US bombing Iran and creating an unstable Middle East, than allowing Iran to retain the capabilities to enrich uranium and continue their progress in ten years.

Vandango · 13-05-2015 12:00AM

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Good, in the sense Russia can use them to keep the Yanks and their NATO expansionist allies in check

Amen.

silverfeather · 13-05-2015 12:06AM

bad/

Reiver · 13-05-2015 12:07AM

silverfeather wrote: »

bad/

Hippie.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-05-2015 12:07AM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Nuke the whales.

Nuke the gay whales for Jesus !

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 12:18AM

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Good, in the sense Russia can use them to keep the Yanks and their NATO expansionist allies in check

Vandango wrote: »

Amen.

Is this really what people believe?

Russia's economy is less than $2 trillion. The EU and US combined is around $35 trillion. Russia's population is 143.5 million. EU and US combined is around 815 million. Russia's military spending is around $90bn. EU and US is around $865 billion. Russia has 1600 active nuclear weapons. The US/EU have closer to 2560. Russia's navy is rusting (they had to hide in the Seine a few months ago because the Atlantic had some poor weather, and their ships had to be accompanied by tug boats to sit outside Australia at the G20), its "new" tanks breakdown in the middle of parades, their soldiers only got socks in 2013/14, the Pak-Fa is such a clusterfuck that the Indians have figured "feck it, we'll buy the Rafale". Meanwhile the F35 has close to 10,000 flight hours and is performing incredibly well (it's set to be the second greatest stealth fighter in the world, after the F22), the US is building the Ford-class carriers (after already building 10 of the largest carrier types in the world), the British are building two of what will be the third largest class of carrier in the world...

Russia isn't keeping anything "in check". The Russians opposed the West in Iraq, and Libya, and Syria. Where's Saddam now? Where's Gaddafi now? Where's Assad now? They're pushing up daisies (or soon to be), which is what happens when the West wants your head. The Russians are cuddled around their nuclear weapons, hoping to god that the Chinese don't sell them out and that the West doesn't come knocking.

Hell, Russia was driven into annexing Crimea and starting a war in Ukraine (thereby terminating any chance of Ukraine joining Russia's Eurasian Union) just by the EU telling the Ukrainians "maybe you can join in the future".

Russia's economy contracted and is set to run a deficit this year, their cash reserves are being heavily (and rapidly) depleted. The Russians aren't the good guys, they're the people who raped Eastern Europe for decades, and when they left the Warsaw Pact overwhelmingly ran into the arms of NATO and the EU. Russia doesn't have friends, Russia's only "allies" are central asian shítholes without any better prospects. Russia's military is in shambles and a state of disrepair. Imperial Russia is dead and gone, and with it, their influence over Europe.

Europe dominated the world for over 550 years, and now it's America's turn. You can tug yourself to the thought of Russia and China standing up to the US and EU, but it's a dream. This is the Age of the West, and we're not going anywhere in the next century.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 12:25AM

Assad is still alive.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-05-2015 12:29AM

seamus wrote: »

What peace?

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

+1

One word should show how nuclear weapons have failed to deter war.

Yugoslavia.

The bomb wasn't used in Korea. Even when the other side didn't have it. Nor was it used in Vietnam. Afghanistan or Iraq or Congo. India and Pakistan have been in real shooting wars without using their nukes. As has Israel. Indonesia was the third power with a nuclear airforce, albeit in Russian hands, but still didn't use them.

The US military have been involved in wars with a total death toll of over 10 million. Add in the central African wars and genocides in Rwanda , Burundi and Congo and there's another 5 million deaths. Nukes haven't deterred any of them.

The number of Mexicans who've died in the drug wars funded by US market have probably killed more people than either of the Atomic bombings.

In WWII none of the main combatants used chemical weapons against anyone who could retaliate in kind. It was just the Japanese against the Chinese. Though a bombing raid at Bari showed that the US had brought some mustard gas to Europe.

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 01:17AM

osarusan wrote: »

Assad is still alive.

You do know what "Soon to be" means, right?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

+1
One word should show how nuclear weapons have failed to deter war.
Yugoslavia.

The idea wasn't that it would stop war altogether because you will never stop war it is an inherent human condition. The idea is that it stopped the two main power-blocs (the USSR and NATO) from biting each other's heads off. Which it did.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The bomb wasn't used in Korea. Even when the other side didn't have it. Nor was it used in Vietnam. Afghanistan or Iraq or Congo. India and Pakistan have been in real shooting wars without using their nukes. As has Israel. Indonesia was the third power with a nuclear airforce, albeit in Russian hands, but still didn't use them.

You sound like you believe any war that erupted should've been settled with nuclear weapons. That is not what the majority believed, or wanted.

"India and Pakistan have been in real shooting wars without using their nukes". One, actually, the Kargil war. The only recorded instance of nuclear powers fighting, and it was a limited "war" that lasted around 3 months.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The US military have been involved in wars with a total death toll of over 10 million. Add in the central African wars and genocides in Rwanda , Burundi and Congo and there's another 5 million deaths. Nukes haven't deterred any of them.

As I said, the idea was not to deter wars entirely, that's simply impossible. I don't remember the USSR invading through the Fulda Gap post-WW2, or NATO invading any Warsaw Pact countries, though. I don't remember the US invading China either.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The number of Mexicans who've died in the drug wars funded by US market have probably killed more people than either of the Atomic bombings.

Probably. That's nothing to do with war, though. I could point to people dying from being hit by hits and claim "safety belts in cars are pointless".

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In WWII none of the main combatants used chemical weapons against anyone who could retaliate in kind. It was just the Japanese against the Chinese. Though a bombing raid at Bari showed that the US had brought some mustard gas to Europe.

So you are saying chemical warfare was a deterrent to chemical warfare, but the possibility of nuclear warfare isn't a deterrent to nuclear warfare?

riclad · 13-05-2015 01:20AM

The latest american jet fighter cost like 10 times the model in use at the moment .
IT does,nt have a proper air to ground camera ,photo system,
for marking targets or looking for allied troops on the ground .
its doesn,t yet have a proper computerised missile ,or bombing guidance system .

IT has problems with engines going on fire at random times .
The us military ,industrial complex is out of control ,
its there mainly to provide money for contractors in certain states .
certain old troop transport planes are being replaced by new planes that cost 10 times more than ones designed in the 80,s .
And the new planes are much more expensive to run, maintain.
RUSSIA and the usa could scrap 90 per cent of the missiles they have and still destroy the world.

I see china as the big superpower next to the usa ,
it s got massive exports to the usa and the eu,
while being able to ignore rules like software patents, working conditions in factorys and a minimum wage .
And it can copy the best tech products and idea,s from the west .

Russia has hardly any new tech sector, it just relys on gas ,oil to survive .
That was ok when oil was 50 dollars a barrell ,
not so good now.
IT has an unlimited supply of engineers ,programmers etc
it can afford to spend billions on solar power ,or cpu chip design etc

IrishTrajan · 13-05-2015 01:35AM

riclad wrote: »

The latest american jet fighter cost like 10 times the model in use at the moment .
IT does,nt have a proper air to ground camera ,photo system,
for marking targets or looking for allied troops on the ground .
its doesn,t yet have a proper computerised missile ,or bombing guidance system .

IT has problems with engines going on fire at random times .
The us military ,industrial complex is out of control ,
its there mainly to provide money for contractors in certain states .
certain old troop transport planes are being replaced by new planes that cost 10 times more than ones designed in the 80,s .
And the new planes are much more expensive to run, maintain.
RUSSIA and the usa could scrap 90 per cent of the missiles they have and still destroy the world.

Yes, it is more expensive because it is better. A single F35 could likely take out an entire squadron of F16s without breaking a sweat.
The F35 has an improved version of the guidance system used by the F22, its datalink is faster and more jamming-resilient than any other. If you think it can't strike a ground target with the same payload as an F18 with greater accuracy, you're sadly mistaken.
Yes it does have missiles. The AIM120 is currently its air-to-air missile (though it can be armed with several), it also as air-to-ground missiles, and soon will have two anti-ship missile types (the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile, and the LRAMS).

The first "flight breakages" began occurring after it had accumulated over 9000 flight hours. That's more than most combat aircraft see, and having problems discovered in the engines now is better than finding them later, because they can find the problem and fix it.

Really, larger, faster, more reliable aircraft are more expensive than outdated ones from 30 years ago? Gee, who'd have thunk it.

Neither the US nor Russia have the power to "destroy the world". That was never the theory of MAD. The MAD theory was that they could cause irrevocable damage to the infrastructure of the other side and reduce their nation State non-functionality.

riclad wrote: »

I see china as the big superpower next to the usa ,
it s got massive exports to the usa and the eu,
while being able to ignore rules like software patents, working conditions in factorys and a minimum wage .
And it can copy the best tech products and idea,s from the west

China's exports are non-essential goods that the West could make itself if it wanted to. It's just cheaper to let the Chinese do it. China is not a superpower and won't be a superpower any time within the next 30 years. It took the US a generation or two to become the logistic giant it is today. You can't just up and become a superpower, it takes time. A lot of time.

Also, just "copying" the design isn't ever going to cut the cake. China's metallurgical skill simply isn't up to the West's standards. You can make jokes about the F35's software glitches, but China's are a whole lot worse.

Europe's countries have a budget of $225bn (larger than China's alleged $180bn) and they can't compete with the US on the industrial, economic or logistic level.

riclad wrote: »

Russia has hardly any new tech sector, it just relys on gas ,oil to survive .
That was ok when oil was 50 dollars a barrell ,
not so good now.
IT has an unlimited supply of engineers ,programmers etc
it can afford to spend billions on solar power ,or cpu chip design etc

No, that was never good at $50 bbl. Russia needs $100bbl just to even its books, which is why it has taken such a hammering from current oil prices.

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2015 01:47AM

We cannot make a judgement on the question of good v bad as regards nuclear weapons. We cannot take nuclear weapons out of the equation and run history, like an experiment, one time with nukes and the next without, again and again until we were satisfied we had enough data to reach a conclusion.

Nuclear Weapons Good or Bad?

Comments