[bhamlaxy]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

How do you feel about them?

I believe that their creation and existence has been an incredible addition to the world, and that a world with nuclear weapons is better than a world without.

[cody iommi]

I think having nuclear weapons is an increasingly scary matter.

[Suinia]

I think nuclear weapons stem from the same thing as "lol who's ____ is bigger"
.

[ExoCorsair]

All it takes is one guy who isn't afraid to use them if provoked and some part of the world goes "kablooie".

As long as there aren't nutcases like those in power, it makes a very good war deterrent.

[mengwei]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

[cody iommi]

Originally Posted by mengwei

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

sadly enough. that's exactly how it will go down.

[wrtjhaw]

I think a weapon that has the destructive power to not only completely level an entire city, but have it's effects be felt throughout the nation as well as eventualy overseas (radiation and what not) is rediculously uneccissary.

[cody iommi]

Originally Posted by wrtjhaw

I think a weapon that has the destructive power to not only completely level an entire city, but have it's effects be felt throughout the nation as well as eventualy overseas (radiation and what not) is rediculously uneccissary.

they're basically used to show off and try to scare the other countries. lol. so it doesn't matter if it's necessary or not. it's just for show. but one idiot one day.. will probably blow one up. >.> causing a nuclear war.

[Moshineko]

I'm with Bham on this one. Chances of someone using nuclear weapons is vanishingly small at this point, and the chance of the sort of person who would use them getting a hold of them is even smaller. It takes months to even think about building a nuclear weapon, and lots of very educated folks, not the sort of thing you can knock up in your garage on a weekend, you know?

Thing about educated folks is that they generally don't want to die, or to kill anyone else. We usually learn about new nuclear weapons programs from the technicians that are working in them. Generally, the more education you have, the less blind loyalty you have to the state, so any country sufficiently advanced to make nuclear weapons contains people smart enough to know that using nuclear weapons is a stupid idea, and with enough integrity to go tell someone about it, even if it's seemingly against the country's best interests.

Evidence? Well, look at the nuclear weapon scene currently. Everyone freaks out about Korea, which might or might not have nuclear capabilities (I find this hard to believe, as they don't even have electricity), and Iran, which set aside nuclear weapon capablities what, in 2004? (Forget the exact date) Both of these countries are pretty Anti-American in their policies, yet neither wanted to actually use the weapons, merely to have them for political advantage.

If both of these members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" have restrained themselves, I think it's pretty evident that nuclear war is not a big problem at the moment. Everyone knows that if they use a nuclear weapon, at best they will have their ass handed to them by the rest of the world. Worst case scenario? They become a new nuclear testing ground for everyone else.

There have been several close calls in our history, but most of them have been forestalled by the great fear with which we regard nuclear weapons. Look at what we have to go through to fire one:

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.

So, basically: first, you get a call. This call comes with a code that tells you the call is for real. Then, you need another code to get the code to actually activate the weapon, which is stored in a safe. After the final code, you still need two people to agree to launch the weapon.

Wow.
That's a lot of time to think about whether it's the right thing to do, neh?

And a good thing, too. If nuclear bombs were easy to fire, we might use them. BUT, we fear them so much we set up this impossibly long procedure to fire one. Hence Bay of Pigs turned out okay, and (if I remember correctly), the messup with the radar that put NORAD on red alert turned out okay. (oops! It were a goose! My bad!)

Additionally, the only countries that have nuclear capabilities sufficient to actually hurt the US significantly are Russia, China, and some of the European states. The idea of any of those attacking the US is pretty silly at this point. Russia, as part of the USSR, already had its chance, and never did it, Europe is far to rich and clever to want to get itself nuked, and China doesn't want to blow up its best customer.

From what I've heard, the US economy will keep going at a fairly steady clip even if 25% of our population is killed. This of course refers to ability to produce, as obviously a loss that great would be emotionally devestating. But, it wouldn't stop us from fighting back and, to be perfectly honest, be assured that our assailant country would be a smoking pile of rubble by dinnertime.

Take a look at what happened after the attack on the World Trade Center. THE center of financial and economic business in the US, and even after it was destroyed, in many parts of the US, it was business as usual (economically) that afternoon. Great emotional trauma, but we got past it really quickly. It's a biiiiig country.

So, given a "rogue state" or a single terror attack, we'd be scared shitless, and emotionally traumatized, but still in a very dominant position. That sort of attack is something to protect against, no doubt, but even if it were to succeed, damage would be fairly minimal. The US would live on. And get really pissed.

I think that many people rightly fear the possiblity of nuclear war, but don't understand just how unlikely such an event is, or what the scope of it would be. It would be devestating, no doubt, but life would continue, as most bombs are aimed at strategic sites; military bases, seaports, large cities. It would suck to be the Coasts, but if you were rocking Kansas, you'd probably be okay.

And let's face it, no country is failed enough to have enough crazy people in its infrastructure that they would all agree it was a good idea to launch a hundred nuclear missiles all at once. One, two, ten even, perhaps, but not all of them. Again, life would suck, but would go on.

[bhamlaxy]

I think having nuclear weapons is an increasingly scary matter.

Why do you think it's scary? They provide the most extreme form of security. No two nuclear capable states have ever waged direct and full war against eachother.

My argument is that before nuclear weapons, the biggest powers of the world were often engaged in war. Examples include the war of 1812, WWI and WWII, and any other conflict involving countries like France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and the US. In the post-nuclear world, war has shifted to small scale conflicts. The US and Russia will almost certainly never wage war against each other because of mutually assured destruction. Both sides know that if we launch nuclear weapons at another, we are guaranteeing our own destruction. Had it not been for nuclear weapons, the cold war would almost certainly have been much more violent. Without nuclear weapons, the clash between capitalism and communism would have been a direct and violent conflict.

All it takes is one guy who isn't afraid to use them if provoked and some part of the world goes "kablooie".

Yea, but these risks are so small. Everybody knows if you launch nuclear weapons at another nuclear capable country, or even an ally of a nuclear capable country, your country will be blasted off the face of the earth.

Additionally, it is pretty hard for these madmen to even get nuclear weapons, and especially the means to deliver them. It would take a while for countries like Iran or North Korea to develop the technology to deliver nuclear weapons to the US.

sadly enough. that's exactly how it will go down.

The US would never fire missiles at China because it would, of course, guarantee the US gets absolutely destroyed. Nuclear missiles are a perfect deterrent between us. Without them, issues over trade or hegemony could escalate and lead to a conventional war, which would kill millions, and lead to some major changes in the world. Instead, nuclear weapons keep us at a safe level, arguing about issues, but too afraid to get violent.

I think a weapon that has the destructive power to not only completely level an entire city, but have it's effects be felt throughout the nation as well as eventualy overseas (radiation and what not) is rediculously uneccissary.

Why unnecessary? When you have a nuclear weapon, no country will launch a large scale attack against you. None of the most powerful countries will fight against each other.

I view it as a very necessary and great addition to the worlds military arsenals. Time shows that before nuclear weapons, conflicts often included the most powerful countries in the world fighting each other. Since nukes, we don't fight.

[Longknife]

When I first came in here, I was like "Wtf you gotta be kidding me."

Then in my search to find some form of un-ignorant logic in your belief, I realized it's cause of the sheer danger of launching one. xP


True, really, but still they're a little....bleh.

[Moshineko]

As a short addendum, yes, for some states they are necessary. Look at Israel. We know it has nuclear capabilities, and we know it is intensely unpopular among its neighbors. Leaving out the validity of Israel as a state altogether, how long do you think it would take, normally, for a country that bombed its neighbors to be, itself, bombed and subsequently destroyed? Yet Israel persists, partially due to its very well-trained and equipped military, but mostly, I believe, due to the fact that its neighbors know that Israel has the nuclear ace up its sleeve. Look at that, nuclear weapons prevent war.

Nuclear weapons are less an actual weapon than really the threat of the weapon. Like expulsion in school, it is there, hanging over your head, but you'd really have to go completely over the line to have it ever used.

[bhamlaxy]

I believe, due to the fact that its neighbors know that Israel has the nuclear ace up its sleeve. Look at that, nuclear weapons prevent war.

This is a great example. Before nuclear Israel, look at all the wars. Most of them included a ton of Arab states rallying together and invading. There were of course many casualties, although Israel came out on top.

Now that Israel is nuclear capable, what wars have we seen? There is the slow and steady constant terrorism, but nothing too bad. There was that Lebanon-Israel war a few years back, but it was very small scale, nothing like the old days where it was all the Arab countries against Israel. This is because winning a war against Israel is impossible now. If the Arab countries were to band together and invade, Israel would fight damn hard to win. If Israel was on the verge of defeat, and the country was about to be destroyed, they would almost certainly start launching nukes, fucking up any country that sent troops in. A great example of the change in warfare before and after a country achieved nuclear weapons.

[Moshineko]

Yes, exactly. For another example, look at North Korea. Scary, scary North Korea. Ohhhh, boogie-boogie. They were going to develop nuclear weapons and go nuts. Eeek.

But what did they really want? Well, it turned out, as I recall, all they wanted out of the US was a promise not to invade them. A bit of political advantage with China, and a way to keep South Korea from taking over.

That's the history of nuclear weapons, really. Even the US mostly had them to deter the USSR from any sort of invasion of European allies. The one time we did use them in anger, it was after World War II had really ended (not officially, but it was done, for all intents and purposes), and when Japan wouldn't sit down and shut up. We could have easily, even then, destroyed the entire country, even without more nuclear strikes, but we dropped two, told Japan to surrender, and spent the next couple decades or so helping them to rebuild what we'd bombed.

Nuclear weapons just aren't used. They're too scary. And therein lies their power. You don't beat up a cop when you're arrested generally, right? Why? The sexy uniform? The authority? Nope. The gun. You don't want to be shot. Out of the crimes that happen, even today, in the US, killing of a police officer is still relatively rare. So much so that it's a really big deal when it does happen, and the perp can kiss his or her ass goodbye.

Nuclear weapons are sort of the handgun of the world. And just as killing a police officer with a gun means you're open season, so would attacking another country with nuclear weapons. Don't freak out, we'll end up degenerating to savages before we bomb ourselves, most likely, either that or be hit by an asteroid.

MOSHI FUN-FACT: We've been avoiding talking about nuclear power, but still, did you know that a nuclear plant actually produces less radiation than a coal-burning plant of similar output potential? Cool, neh?

[Bleudrgn2010]

I'm not sure why you would think that? Or are you taking that stance simply to get us to argue, because there's no way they're existence benefits us in any way, whatsoever. EDIT: And I guess you didn't take that stance just to get people to argue.

Think back to their first purpose. They were used for the first time in combat for what reason? To massively kill people to intimidate Japan into surrendering IMMEDIATELY so that our troops would not die, but we were happily ready to sacrifice their COMPLETELY innocent civillians; thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them.

I feel like the only people that should have authority over such things are the UN, as a COMBINED decision. I think there are situation we may need such huge power (maybe from an asteroid needing to be blown up if it ever came our way, as a last resort against an alien race, something that threatens the world as a WHOLE) and can only be used if it's completely unanymous among the UN.

Those things hold such devastating power, then I really don't think humans can be trusted with it, at least not ones like the pepople in power at the moment. If people are going to be using them irrationally on things solely like religion (yes it may be obvious to use such things for those that believe in the religion, but they're obviously naive and don't understand how much it affects everyone and what they're really doing).

The fact that there is even a small possibility of a nuclear war compeltely annhilating the entire human race on earth is just way too much of something to risk. The US and USSR should've been much more mature about the whole matter and realized something like that needs not to be brought into earth, whether their country is at stake or not. Some humans are better than none, whether it's your country surviving or not.

EDIT: I just saw the example that nuclear weapons prevent wars in that they scare people from doing it? I believe scaring them into not wanting to do a war due to nuclear weapons will only make those countries want to make nuclear weapons themselves (Iran, NK) and thus point them back. In that situation, SOMEONE is going to use it. And in that comes a nuclear war, killing us all. :s

I believe yeah the chance may be small to use them, but if someone DOES use it, it'll just create a chain reaction. If one country sees another threatening and using nuclear weapons, they're going to try to be on par with them. It's kind of like flying in a plane or a car. If you drive a car, you'll probably be in a lot of accidents but have a small chance to die. If you fly, you'll have a small chance of crashing but like a 99% chance of dying. But in this case, it applies to an entire species. I just don't think the threat, though small, is worth having.