[bhamlaxy]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

I'm very curious to know why, despite historical evidence to the contrary, everyone assumes that any use of nuclear weapons will result in a cataclysmic domino effect, spiraling into all-out nuclear war.

Although we agree on whether or not nuclear weapons are a good thing, I have to disagree, at least to some extent, with your statement.

First of all, there is no historical evidence. We have never had a nuclear attack on another country where a domino effect could have taken place, because the one time it was used, no one else had weapons.

There's a lot of instances where the use of one nuclear weapon could lead to a chain reaction. When a country uses a nuclear weapon, all bets are off when it comes to mutually assured destruction being a deterrent. The allies of a country would quickly become involved, which could spread it. I'd say in almost all cases, true nuclear armageddon wouldn't happen, but whatever countries involved would no longer exist.

If a nuclear armed country ever uses nuclear weapons to attack another nuclear power, you can flat out guarantee that each of those countries will be absolutely annihilated (as long as they have enough weapons to do so). If the US and Russia got into a nuclear war, there wouldn't be a couple blasts in the big cities, every inch of US and Russia would be obliterated. The US has around 10,000 nuclear warheads, and you can definitely bet we would be using a hefty amount if another nuclear power were to attack us.

One thing that scares me and makes me feel happy at the same time is the possibility of nuclear missile defense. The US is of course at the forefront of this technology, although our current systems (the publicly acknowledged ones at least) don't work very well, and may only have the capacity to take down a missile or two, not a few thousand coming from Russia. But should we ever develop a fully capable nuclear missile defense system, especially before other nuclear countries do, then things could potentially get bad. But it makes me feel happy, because I live in the US!

[Krymogen]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

One thing that scares me and makes me feel happy at the same time is the possibility of nuclear missile defense. The US is of course at the forefront of this technology, although our current systems (the publicly acknowledged ones at least) don't work very well, and may only have the capacity to take down a missile or two, not a few thousand coming from Russia. But should we ever develop a fully capable nuclear missile defense system, especially before other nuclear countries do, then things could potentially get bad. But it makes me feel happy, because I live in the US!

I was going to mention this. After Hiroshima noone retaliated because, well, noone had the power to do so. Later they did gain that military might but things were already sorta "forgiven" so noone got back at the US for nuking japan.

Now, if the US was to develop a fully working defense system it'd get scary. Sure, the fear most of us would have to even try attacking the US would be a paralysing factor, but, let us not forget that there are terrorists who kill themselves for their ideals, so who's to say America wouldn't screw up, since the fear factor wouldn't affect them?

[Tor]

If you are at War, you just don't target every inch of the country. That's going to be a waste of your weapons. You would only target sites that you know would be a threat to your own country.

So saying that every inch of both Russia and the U.S would be oblivated is wrong IMO. Why would you nuke a mountain, with nothing there but goats?

There's technology out there, satellites for instance, that can determine the exact location of where a missle has been launch and determine where it's heading.

For another country to just launch more nukes because one nuke is coming is not going to happen. Information travels very fast so everyone (the goverment) will know. The people on the other hand is probably gonna have to watch the news, or surf the net.

[bhamlaxy]

If a country decides to attack one because of a misunderstandment, the whole world can suffer with it. We are no longer facing 25kg uranium ones, at the moment there are way stronger ones that can make whole countries vanish with 3-4 of them. So yeah, it's pretty much just a statment like '' My power > your power'' wich will likely lead to meanigless destruction.

Your argument sounds nice, but its proven wrong by history. Before nuclear weapons, the powers of the world often created meaningless destruction. The entire continents of Europe and Asia were thrown into complete turmoil, killing millions, destroying economies and separating countries.

Now, you simply can't do that, because the enemy has the ability to destroy your entire country. That means that a simple war is no longer possible, since it is automatic destruction. This means we now discuss things more diplomatically, and we don't have rogue leaders heading the most powerful countries in the world trying to take over the world.

If you are at War, you just don't target every inch of the country. That's going to be a waste of your weapons. You would only target sites that you know would be a threat to your own country.

Sure, but in the event where the enemy country is attacking your country with nuclear weapons, and you are about to lose a huge chunk of your population, or face the destruction of your government, you just launch all missiles. With 10,000 nuclear weapons, the US wouldn't really have to use them sparingly.

So saying that every inch of both Russia and the U.S would be oblivated is wrong IMO. Why would you nuke a mountain, with nothing there but goats?

Okay, so I guess not every square inch, since we are talking about Russia, which is vastly covered by unpopulated area. In a full blown balls out exchange, every moderately populated area would be hit by both sides.

For another country to just launch more nukes because one nuke is coming is not going to happen. Information travels very fast so everyone (the goverment) will know. The people on the other hand is probably gonna have to watch the news, or surf the net.

Wait, so you are saying if a country launched a nuclear weapon at another country, the target country wouldn't launch their own missiles?

They definitely can tell when other countries launch missiles, and they can see where they are headed. If for example, we were to see that a nuclear missile was fired from Russia and was headed directly towards New York, we would most certainly have nuclear missiles in the air headed toward Moscow before New York was even hit. Nuclear missile technology is some of the most advanced technology available to the government, and if the Cold War did anything good, it was to create a very intricate and accurate system for knowing exactly when we are attacked, who is doing it, where its headed, and how we can strike back with the maximum potential for death, in a very short amount of time.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by Krymogen

I was going to mention this. After Hiroshima noone retaliated because, well, noone had the power to do so. Later they did gain that military might but things were already sorta "forgiven" so noone got back at the US for nuking japan.

Now, if the US was to develop a fully working defense system it'd get scary. Sure, the fear most of us would have to even try attacking the US would be a paralysing factor, but, let us not forget that there are terrorists who kill themselves for their ideals, so who's to say America wouldn't screw up, since the fear factor wouldn't affect them?

There are many variants of the famed 'nuclear launch codes' that have achieved Cold War Mythos status through movies such as Wargames, Dr. Strangelove, Fail-Safe, Crimson Tide, and others. In reality (as near as can be described) the truth is usually more complex, and not as romantic.
First of all, the actual message sequences themselves that come in to the actual launch stations (the ICBM LCCs, the SSBNs, the bomber bases) are not typically directly used to activate the weapon. They typically are merely means of authentication that verifies an accompanying order to take an unthinkable action. I mean, really, to paraphrase the unknown missileer in the opening sequence of Wargames, 'Before I kill a hundred million people, I wanna get somebody on the fucking phone.'

So. There are codes which are used to physically unlock the weapons, which are (one hopes) disabled through the installation of PALs, or Permissive Action Links. However, typically these codes are prepositioned at the launch site, with access to them blocked through discipline and observation or perhaps another set of codes which would be broadcast. Usually, they are secured in a safe of some sort, to which the crew has access. Although the crew does usually know the combination or have keys to the safe, there is a rule called the Two-Man Rule or the No Lone Zone, which states that no single person is ever left alone within reach of either the arming/firing mechanism or the weapon itself.

Again, that's why. Dozens of safeguards. America does have the fear, as Russia and China have massive amounts of nukes. That's why it works. If only one of us had them, it would be bad. All of us have them, so it works out. And Russia and China had sufficient manpower to attack the US, but chose not to. The Japanese had little power to do much besides ruin their country, which we couldn't let happen. Look into why WWII started, and you'll see what happens when a country is ruined and left to rot.


Nobel Prize site (here) Had this to say about the history of Nuclear Weapons:

After the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945, many people called for a ban on nuclear weapons in order to avoid a nuclear arms race and the risk of future catastrophes like the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the United States and the Soviet Union declared that they were in favor of putting the atomic bomb under foolproof international control. In spite of these declarations, the big powers were, in fact, never ready to give up their own nuclear weapons programs. By the end of 1946 it was clear to everybody that the effort to prevent a nuclear arms race had failed. Indeed, the Soviet Union had already launched a full-speed secret nuclear weapons program in an attempt to catch up with the United States. Thanks in part to espionage, the Soviet scientists were able to build a blueprint of the American fission bomb that was used against Nagasaki and to conduct a successful testing of it on August 29, 1949.

Soviets did have at least one nuclear weapon only several years afterwards, and were against a ban on them. They could have easily used this weapon against us when we were still the only two nations with them. Russia has quite a bit more disposable land and control over its citizens at the time than we did, so it really would have been a perfect time to attack. They didn't. They won't.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

Wait, so you are saying if a country launched a nuclear weapon at another country, the target country wouldn't launch their own missiles?

They definitely can tell when other countries launch missiles, and they can see where they are headed. If for example, we were to see that a nuclear missile was fired from Russia and was headed directly towards New York, we would most certainly have nuclear missiles in the air headed toward Moscow before New York was even hit. Nuclear missile technology is some of the most advanced technology available to the government, and if the Cold War did anything good, it was to create a very intricate and accurate system for knowing exactly when we are attacked, who is doing it, where its headed, and how we can strike back with the maximum potential for death, in a very short amount of time.

I was referring to as, why other countries would launch their missles? How does one country targetting another country equal the end of the world? That's why I'm saying nukes aren't going to be world enders.

The creation of nuclear weapons is advance technology, but the use of it just simple warfare. If a nuke was heading towards, the U.S, why would the U.S launch all of it's missle? Even though people laugh at the goverment, it still is a very advance form of managing the country. The president may get the final word on most things, but he's going to be advised by tons of people on what to do next.

Only a man acting on his own would hastedly go on an all out blitz. You have to ask the questions, what is there to gain from nuking cities that pose no threat? Even if you have 10,000 nukes, any normal strategist would only use them on strategic points. If you're going to nuke a defenseless city, you know there could be a retialation on the enemy's part as well as the world itself. I don't see a nuke flying towards a major city from any country right now.

Humans have come a long way from the war mongering days. You can use history as a reference, but history is "history". The world is powered by information, knowledge, other crap now.

Before I get anyone confused though, I'm just arguing my thoughts, on why launching one nuke will not cause a chain reaction that will end the world.

[bhamlaxy]

I was referring to as, why other countries would launch their missles? How does one country targetting another country equal the end of the world? That's why I'm saying nukes aren't going to be world enders.

Another reason they could be world ending would be the economic impacts. If there were to be a war between China and the US for some odd reason, and both countries were absolutely annihilated, the worlds two biggest economies would be trashed. As seen recently, even the fear of a US recession causes markets around the world to take a hit. When you eliminate our entire economies, things would really go down the tubes. Worldwide recession would most certainly happen, currencies would collapse, war would most likely break out across the world, which were previously protected against by US presence. It may not be world ending, but a LOT of people would die in addition to the deaths caused by the blast.

The creation of nuclear weapons is advance technology, but the use of it just simple warfare. If a nuke was heading towards, the U.S, why would the U.S launch all of it's missle?

Why wouldn't they? If millions of our population were about to be killed, we would strike back, thats what nuclear weapons are for. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If the US were to engage with China or Russia in a nuclear war, it would lead to the absolute destruction of both countries, and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. It wouldn't just be "you launch one, I launch one", it would be a full blown counter attack, focusing on both military targets and civilian targets (if they attacked civilian targets in the first place.

Only a man acting on his own would hastedly go on an all out blitz. You have to ask the questions, what is there to gain from nuking cities that pose no threat? Even if you have 10,000 nukes, any normal strategist would only use them on strategic points. If you're going to nuke a defenseless city, you know there could be a retialation on the enemy's part as well as the world itself.

Civilian populations are often targets in war, as seen by the bombings of London in WWII, the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII, and the nuclear attacks on Japan. Cities are most certainly a very big target. They are economic centers, and destroying another countries population are a great way to lead to anarchy and chaos within the country.

Nuclear silos are often deep underground, protected from nuclear weapons. They are definitely a target, but in a balls out nuclear exchange, civilian areas are definitely targeted.

The point of nuclear weapons is that they can destroy large civilian areas. Historically, that's the only place they have ever been used. They create fear, shatter a country, and end wars. We have 10,000 nuclear weapons because we wouldn't only use them

The world itself wouldn't really do anything because they wouldn't want to get involved once they see both countries slaughtering each other.

So pretty much civilian populations would certainly be targeted in a nuclear exchange. If China wanted to destroy the US economy, morale, and really throw us into a shit storm, they would nail New York. In that instance, we would certainly launch a nuke at Shanghai or Hong Kong before their weapon even hits the US.

While researching, I found some interesting stuff about the instances in which the US would use nuclear weapons. This is from the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, the official US policy as it relates to the use of nuclear weapons. These are the instances in which the US can use nuclear weapons.

- An enemy who uses or threatens to use WMD against the US, multinational forces, alliance forces, or civilian populations.
- To stop an imminent biological weapon attack
- To destroy the nuclear weapons of another country
- To stop overwhelming conventional enemy forces
- To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms
- To ensure the success of US and international operations
- To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemies from using WMD's
- To react to enemy supplied WMD used by proxy forces against US/international forces or civilians

Pretty crazy stuff.

[Tor]

Another reason they could be world ending would be the economic impacts. If there were to be a war between China and the US for some odd reason, and both countries were absolutely annihilated, the worlds two biggest economies would be trashed. As seen recently, even the fear of a US recession causes markets around the world to take a hit. When you eliminate our entire economies, things would really go down the tubes. Worldwide recession would most certainly happen, currencies would collapse, war would most likely break out across the world, which were previously protected against by US presence. It may not be world ending, but a LOT of people would die in addition to the deaths caused by the blast.

In history this has never happend where it would cause a world ender. Money does make the world go round, and the stock markets around the world does inflence many economies and large businesses. But if you look at the busineses that matter, which would cause a world wide panic, is agriculture. The U.S only imports something like 40 billlion worth of food. Not sure about china.

The rest is goods, products. I'm not saying that they wouldn't have an impact on the world, but most of the world, is not in a state that is comparable to the U.S. A war that destroys the U.S and China, caused by Nukes, is gonna have an effect use, but it's not going to destroy the world.

Why wouldn't they? If millions of our population were about to be killed, we would strike back, thats what nuclear weapons are for. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If the US were to engage with China or Russia in a nuclear war, it would lead to the absolute destruction of both countries, and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. It wouldn't just be "you launch one, I launch one", it would be a full blown counter attack, focusing on both military targets and civilian targets (if they attacked civilian targets in the first place.

You made a good point about targetting civilians. =D

However I still don't believe that absolute destruction will come from nukes. Nor do I belive that two warring countries, that launches nukes at each other, would cause a massive nuking chain reaction.

[Jakeys]

I do not approve of nuclear weapons, Weither it provides security or not.
Even if there is a very small chance there used, that chance shouldnt even be there.
Cause the results will be horrible. Thousands of inoccent people could die.
Those things shouldnt even exist.
Weither you have a small war and killing them all slowly.
or having 1 fierce economic conflict and have them all killed at once
doesnt make much of a difference.

[bhamlaxy]

But if you look at the busineses that matter, which would cause a world wide panic, is agriculture. The U.S only imports something like 40 billlion worth of food. Not sure about china.

Exactly. I agree with you 100%, agriculture is what matters. Guess what? The US is the worlds largest exporter of food. Post-nuclear war, there is no way in hell we would be exporting any food. A huge portion of the world supply of food in the world would be eliminated, meaning countries would have to look elsewhere. Of course, due to basic economics, the price would absolutely skyrocket. Remove a huge portion of the supply while the demand remains the same, and the price would go through the roof. Any poor country who buys lots of food from the US would simply collapse, moderate countries would go into heavy recession, possibly ending with complete economic collapse, and the largest countries may survive, if they are able to handle the impact of skyrocketing food prices, huge changes in world trade, and the fact that most of the world around them is going nuts.

I do not approve of nuclear weapons, Weither it provides security or not.
Even if there is a very small chance there used, that chance shouldnt even be there.
Cause the results will be horrible. Thousands of inoccent people could die.
Those things shouldnt even exist.
Weither you have a small war and killing them all slowly.
or having 1 fierce economic conflict and have them all killed at once
doesnt make much of a difference.

Just look at history. We can both agree death is bad. Before nuclear weapons, the world powers fought hard against each other. In WWII Russia lost millions of innocent civilians, Europe was thrown into chaos, and casualties were extremely high.

Now, the world powers don't go to war. If you are going to win your argument that the world would be better without nuclear weapons, you need to prove that they would be used. I'll argue that mutually assured destruction prevents this. No one will use nuclear weapons against another world superpower, because you would be functionally nuking yourself, since they would obviously counterstrike. Nuclear weapons allow for diplomacy when previously we would have just resorted to war.

[Jakeys]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

Now, the world powers don't go to war. If you are going to win your argument that the world would be better without nuclear weapons, you need to prove that they would be used. I'll argue that mutually assured destruction prevents this. No one will use nuclear weapons against another world superpower, because you would be functionally nuking yourself, since they would obviously counterstrike. Nuclear weapons allow for diplomacy when previously we would have just resorted to war.

This may be true, but wars are not always just solved by having arguments.
Some arguments are never solved, for example cases where both statements could be
right. And neither 1 of them, agrees with the other's statements. If they do not use nuclear weapons, and do not go at war what will happen then. Talking doesnt help
war takes to long ''lets just throw a bomb''. You underestimating the guts of certain country's, who make discission's not based on the people but just by the goverment.
The fact that if you would launch a nuclear missle, the enemy will probly counter strike doesnt always mean they will not do it.

For example the history of Palestina and Isreal, after years there still at war and haven't solved things out.
Imagin yourself with nuclear weapons for both of them, imo i dun think that would end well.
It's really typicall people actually need to see it before taking messure's
A bomb should fall first with 1000 people dying and then they will be like omg nuclear weapons are horrible we should remove them.

It's the reason System of a down wrote BOOM!!.
Why South Parks maker's made the movie Team America, to make people realise it's not ment to be there.
Even tho it provides protection in a certain way.
While it actually provides protection, it also is a great threath to any community in the world.

[ashen171]

i think they gay cuz the land become uninhabitable

[Moshineko]

Ashen. Your one friendly reminder. One sentence-posts in the Debates forum do not fly. We need more to work off of. Please remember the Debate rules, stickied at the top of the sub-forum. If you really feel strongly about Nuclear Weapons, please come back with some more substantive stuff. If you don't want to debate, the Off-Topic is a great place to make a more laid-back thread. Alternately, you could go to SC and have your thread go haywire and off-topic in 5 seconds (average).

Also, personal pref, and for everyone really. Please don't use "gay" in a derogatory fashion, k? Whatever your personal views are on homosexuals, I don't mind, but using "gay" as a slur is really as bad as some other words you can probably think of on your own. Okay, stepping down from high-horse now. Can we make Bham a Debate Mod, pls, so he can do this instead?

Jakey, Israel has nuclear weapons. Has had them almost as long as the US, I believe (could be wrong), but, despite the constant attack by Palestinian terrorists, Israel has thus far refrained from using its nuclear armaments. I think this goes a long way towards the argument that convetional warfare is actually, on the whole, more dangerous than nuclear armament.

As for people seeing a nuclear strike, they did, at the end of WWII. Know what happened? Should if you read the posts. Lots of people wanted to ban nuclear weapons, but the US and USSR decided to keep them around. We've seen people die in conventional war, and have yet to ban that as well. I think a lot of the time, big decisions are made on a less eomtive basis, and with more of an overview of the effects of the event on the larger picture. Thus, even though many of us would like to see certain activities banned or curtailed (unwarranted presidential grabs for power, for instance), we don't always have the luxury of getting what we want, or even having a large enough grasp on the subject to tell if what we want is actually what we really want, or if it will lead to an undesireable end.

[Jakeys]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Jakey, Israel has nuclear weapons. Has had them almost as long as the US, I believe (could be wrong), but, despite the constant attack by Palestinian terrorists, Israel has thus far refrained from using its nuclear armaments. I think this goes a long way towards the argument that convetional warfare is actually, on the whole, more dangerous than nuclear armament.

As for people seeing a nuclear strike, they did, at the end of WWII. Know what happened? Should if you read the posts. Lots of people wanted to ban nuclear weapons, but the US and USSR decided to keep them around. We've seen people die in conventional war, and have yet to ban that as well. I think a lot of the time, big decisions are made on a less eomtive basis, and with more of an overview of the effects of the event on the larger picture. Thus, even though many of us would like to see certain activities banned or curtailed (unwarranted presidential grabs for power, for instance), we don't always have the luxury of getting what we want, or even having a large enough grasp on the subject to tell if what we want is actually what we really want, or if it will lead to an undesireable end.

Ive googled around a bit, and it was never confirmed Israel had nuclear weapons.(what i found)
Although if they did and never used them, they could be on a line of patience.
Palestina is just gotta keep pushing, until they actually will use it.
I know What happend in WWII, you think everyone would learn from it tho that's not a fact.
There are still some ignorent people out there, who still don't get it.
Just a tiny mistake needs to be made, to make things fatal and let it repeat history.
Like i said before, it needs to happen before people actually take messure's.

[bhamlaxy]

This may be true, but wars are not always just solved by having arguments.
Some arguments are never solved, for example cases where both statements could be
right. And neither 1 of them, agrees with the other's statements. If they do not use nuclear weapons, and do not go at war what will happen then. Talking doesnt help
war takes to long ''lets just throw a bomb''. You underestimating the guts of certain country's, who make discission's not based on the people but just by the goverment.
The fact that if you would launch a nuclear missle, the enemy will probly counter strike doesnt always mean they will not do it.

Your arguments are proven empirically false. For nearly 50 years the US and the USSR were on the brink of war. The fact that nuclear weapons were involved kept things at bay.

Your argument that I'm underestimating certain countries is also empirically false. If you want to get nuclear weapons, you've got to be a damn good leader, with some powerful international friends. When a "rogue" country tries to obtain them (Libya, North Korea, Iran, Iraq), the rest of the world puts extreme pressure on them. Any leader that would potentially commit suicide by launching nuclear weapons at another nuclear country wouldn't be able to get them in the first place.

For example the history of Palestina and Isreal, after years there still at war and haven't solved things out.
Imagin yourself with nuclear weapons for both of them, imo i dun think that would end well.
It's really typicall people actually need to see it before taking messure's
A bomb should fall first with 1000 people dying and then they will be like omg nuclear weapons are horrible we should remove them.

Why? Israel has nuclear weapons, but haven't used them yet. If both countries had nuclear weapons, why would they ever use them? Israel nuking Palestinians would cause the immediate destruction of the holy land, and Palestine nuking Israel would cause the destruction of the land they want so badly, and the death of all their people.

Even in the most heated conflicts, like the extreme conflict of capitalism vs. communism in the Cold War, and the major land disputes in India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons were introduced into both conflicts, without a major conflict.

You can argue that some people or conflicts shouldn't have nuclear weapons, and of course I agree, they shouldn't, and the rest of the world will prevent them from getting them.

It's the reason System of a down wrote BOOM!!.
Why South Parks maker's made the movie Team America, to make people realise it's not ment to be there.
Even tho it provides protection in a certain way.
While it actually provides protection, it also is a great threath to any community in the world.

You still aren't answering my main arguments. Just look at the facts. Before we had nuclear weapons, world wars happened. Entire continents would erupt into conflict, killing millions of people and shattering economies. Since the creation of nuclear weapons, no two world powers have ever fought each other, and conflict has transformed into low level conflicts, where far less people are killed.

Without nuclear weapons, the cold war would have been deadly. Can you imagine the two biggest wor