Will (If another war occurs) nuclear arms be used? Is this a Bad thing? Do you think the world leaders have enough sense not to do it?

If it's on the scale that World War 2 was on, I think tactical nuclear weapons would probably be used. But, I think the next war will be started by a rogue state that uses, or threatens to use, nuclear weapons to further its agenda.

Use of nuclear weapons, in my opinion, is a very bad thing. I can't imagine any reason to justify a nuclear attack...other than the only time it has ever been used. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although terrible, it did shorten the Pacific War by as many as 4-5 years. An assault on Japan's home islands would have have cost considerably more lives military and civilian than the two A-Bomb attacks did.

I could potentially see low yeild tactical nuclear warheads being used in conjunction perhaps with our bunker buster warheads in areas like tora bora for the purpose of collapsing cave networks (given how low the fallout, ecological, and collateral damage would be with our modern warheads), however, I couldn't imagine any other practical use, even as a retaliation.

"given how low the fallout, ecological...damage would be with our modern warheads"

Hmmmmmmmmm...

Dunno. Something interesting I saw on television was that when they first wanted to test the first nuclear weapon there was a good deal of debate -- they were fairly sure that the reaction would stop at some point but they weren't certain that it wouldn't just go on and on until the entire world was gone and then maybe beyond.... So, if they were willing to say, "Oh, what the hell, we'll test it out anyways" I wouldn't be surprised if someone today is willing to say let's go ahead and use em.

I do think it most likely that if there is one used it is likely to not come first from the traditional nuclear powers like the U.S/China/Russia/France/UK but nations like North Korea, Pakistan, and India are more likely to use them first given their more unstable nature (note I'm not making a political judgment in the sense that one form of government is superior to another, though I have those opinions, that's why China is on the list of nations I don't think likely to make a first move.)

More likely than even Pakistan and India or North Korea (I'm not convinced it isn't a good thing that if India is going to have a nuclear arsenal that Pakistan have one too -- mutual destruction as deterrence and all) is that some nation will develop a weapon and turn it over to a fundamentalist group. Currently we know that both Iraq and Iran have nuclear weapon development programs and both are heavily tied to terrorism (Iraq hosted a massive meeting of terrorist groups not long ago.) If a nation friendly to a terrorist group were to develop such a weapon I would not find it surprising for them to turn it over to their terrorist allies for use -- it would achieve the nation's goals and they'd hope it would distance them from the act. They'd publicly denounce the use and privately dance.

Here's the thing, I've been thinking about this and I believe the response might not be what is anticipated if such a thing occurred. I think if a small nuclear weapon were to be detonated in the U.S. say next week, with the current President, the dogs of war would truly be unleashed by the U.S. like they haven't been in the past 50 years. I don't think there would be ANYTHING in the arsenal that would be held back if the military leaders asked for it. Something I don't think the rest of the world understands about the U.S. is how so many of us grow up watching the Vietnam protests and the way our soldiers were spit on and the way that the public grits their teeth and wipes their eyes and vows never again will we not support our troops with all our heart, will all our minds, and with all our souls. This may not be the best attitude, I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that for what I believe to be the majority of the American the shame of the seeing our soldiers spit upon lives with us today and in an effort to avoid even the semblance of that today a GREAT deal of latitude will be given to the military leaders and their requests.

So, this is a long winded way of saying that I think a nation might well develop a small scale weapon, have no delivery system and thus turn it over to a terrorist group, it could be smuggled in and detonated in the U.S., and then, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility for the U.S. to respond in kind. Certainly I think that as mentioned above Tora Bora might well become a plain. And quite frankly, though I'm not proud to admit it, I wouldn't be shocked that with our current leadership the consequences could be more severe. This is all a frightening possibility and even more so because I don't think that the terrorists that hate the U.S. would consider this a real possibility thus goading them into actually using their nuclear weapon. Time and again you've heard Bin Laden say the U.S. didn't really have the will to strike in any meaningful manner before the WTC attacks (because under Clinton we didn't after numerous attacks.) Well, they were wrong about that and I hope that what is happening now would be enough to make any terrorist think it might not be such a good idea.

I don't pray but I'll pray for some good old fashioned fear in this instance anyways.

[This message has been edited by Laches (edited May 03, 2002).]

It depends upon which country you mean might use them, on the happening of a war. America, for instance, faces mass moral conflicts to reason, and the destructive countries face the lack thereof (which is why broken arms don't well work in battle).

America is the country that flows with the beat-box ghetto reasoning of utter clarity in the half-light of the sundown of eternity. The nuclear arms, bright yellow suns that warm until they bring the cold, can only postpone the inevitable creeping of the night as we fall through the looking glass of insanity.

nuclears are good to have only to not let others use them against you. A fear factor that makes you think twice about what's coming back at ya if you fire a nuke against your opponent.

Of course there's a lot of other stuff as well, as nukes not being very efficient weapons for taking control of areas (more like turning them into no-mans land)

EDIT:

And excellent example would be the cold war. I'd almost dare to guarantee(sp?) that soviet and US would have gone to war if it hadn't been for the nuclear capability on both sides.

[This message has been edited by Lokken (edited May 03, 2002).]

Sharlp: "America is the country that flows with the beat-box ghetto reasoning of utter clarity in the half-light of the sundown of eternity. The nuclear arms, bright yellow suns that warm until they bring the cold, can only postpone the inevitable creeping of the night as we fall through the looking glass of insanity"


WTF does this mean? - are you pro or anti nuclear weapons?

What he's trying to say is Mutually Assured Destruction is a really stupid idea.

It works.

But it is dumber-than-dumb.

Its a bit of a Red Queen though, isn;t it - both sides running very quickly to stay in the same place?

After Edit - I have just reread above post, still sounds like nonsense... ;)



[This message has been edited by Christopher_Lee (edited May 03, 2002).]

Nuclear arms, will they be use? They could very well be. If they are used...I dont even want to think about it. And yes it is a bad thing. After a nuclear bomb is droped that area can not be repopulated for 75 years.

Honestly, I don't think any world leaders would be stupid enough to use nukes again. There are psychopathic leaders, like Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, who might use them for their own foolish purposes. If we did have a nuclear war, there wouldn't be much people left to regret it. :(

You can probably guess what I'm going to say with my not so flattering views of humanity in general. I mean I randomly clink on yahoo and two out of the five top headlines are "Bush optimistic on Russia nuclear pact" and "Bombs explode in rural US mailboxes", yeah that pretty much says it all. We haven't seen the end of nuclear weapons. And we certainly haven't seen the end of the idea of mass destruction.

And guys, read the post above Shralp's, then read Shralp's post. (wink, wink) Get it? Shralp, you crack me up. No let me rephrase that: you proceed to forthwith cultivate my amusement in such a way that resonates my gut. :p

Oh, how I long for the good old days of sensible rules about nuclear conduct, like MAD.

MAD worked because the world knew that if a nation of the Warsaw Pact or a nation of NATO launched a preemptive nuclear strike against their foes, those enemies would be able to reciprocate the favor. Nobody wins; everyone ends up a loser.

While that last point remains the same today regarding nuclear weapons, MAD is obviously obsolete. As it has already been pointed out, any initial nuclear strike is likely to come from a rogue state, if it comes from a state at all. The odds of a strike from an organization without national ties, a global terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda, are higher now than ever.

If the United States were hit with a nuclear weapon tomorrow, the urge to return the favor would be strong. Perhaps too strong to be controlled; what consequences are there to deter the US from responding to attack by unleashing hellfire? A conflict with the Soviet Union held the promise of the destruction of the world as we know it.

If, for example, Iraq were to gain nuclear capability, it still could not match the destructive power of the US or now-gone 'Evil Empire.' More likely would be an arsenal comprised of a handful of warheads. The odds of Iraq launching a transcontinental ballistic missile are small; why bother spending more and wasting more time hoping to strike mainland America when the US's favorite nephew Israel is only a stone's throw away? At this point, attacking Israel in such a fashion would be tantamount to hitting mainland US anyway; popular American opinion sees Israel as a moral compatriot in the war on terror. Without the MAD-style threat of world destruction, a counterstrike may be unavoidable. An example would be made, a rogue nation would be immolated. If anti-Western sentiments are rather high at the moment, they would be choking following such a move.

Doesn't seem like the way things should be, though. Would a victory against terror be a victory if terror is the weapon of the victor? It doesn't seem that the motto 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' should be an option for nations that consider themselves civilized. The peace of the graveyard is not to be sought after; neither is the forced peace of the prison.

Nuclear weapons are never a rational choice. Such weapons are indesriminant, killing those unfortunate enough to be forced to live under an extreme totalitarian government. Punishing a rogue state by nuking it is analogous to killing a murderer...and then killing his family, his coworkers, and his neighbors for no transgression save being in contact with the guilty party.

I wish the Soviet Union were still here. MAD's familiar insanity was a lot less ambiguous.

Nuclear arms, will they be use? They could very well be. If they are used...I dont even want to think about it. And yes it is a bad thing. After a nuclear bomb is droped that area can not be repopulated for 75 years.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were repopulated almost immeadiately.

They may have been re-populated almost immediately, but that was over 50 years ago. Nukes have become a lot more powerful now, and they give off a LOT more radiation.

EDIT: That was a great speech, Deviant Mage. :wave::roll::spin::rolling:

[This message has been edited by Faerus Stoneslammer (edited May 04, 2002).]

I agree with most of what Deviant Mage said except I'm not sure how attractive a target Israel would be. It's said hold your friends close and your enemies closer and that saying is carried out in Israel though not by choice. I think that the use of such a weapon on what is considered holy land by many which would kill not only many Israelis but also many many Palestinians might not be a move that terrorists would make. Because of the close proximity of Israel and the Palestinians any large scale attack on one would likely affect the other. With the leaders of the Middle East a lot of the talk about Palestine isn't legitimate (the former Egyptian President admitted publicly the Arab world didn't even want another Palestinian state) but with the majority of the public in the Middle East the Palestinian cause has become a rallying point. I'm not sure that a terrorist organization or a Middle Eastern government would risk losing all popular support by doing harm not only to Israel but also Palestinians. If they could get Israel and avoid Palestinians I have no doubt they'd love to but I'm not sure that is currently possible, maybe it is.

Hiroshima was a military necessity.

Nagasaki was a war crime.

Neither matched the numbers in the Dresden massacre, of course...also a war crime. The firestorming of an open city for no tactical or strategic advantage should demonstrate the extent to which even "reasonable" leaders will go in order to exact revenge.

And they didn't even need nukes for Dresden..

None of you get it. In "is it bad" I meant would it be bad for all but the smartest, best humans to survive?

EDIT
Why Laches, you are exactly wrong. I did not mean my standard of intelligence. I meant that most of humanity is comprised of stupidity. The smartest should get together and decide who would live.

[This message has been edited by Slith (edited May 12, 2002).]

Ahh, well, I see why we didn't get it then. Your question is would it be bad to murder millions of innocent men, women, and children because they don't meet your standard of intelligence? Maybe we missed it because we thought the answer readily apparent.

Now seriously, even if some git of a country that was on the verge of war did have nuclear missiles, do you really think that they would be stupid enough to use the missiles and face nuclear winter? and wipe out the human civilization, themselves and their beliefs?

The smartest should get together and decide who would live.
-Slith

Who decides who the smartest people are?

Heh, the smartest are sometimes the ones:
A) lacking in common sense
B) the ones who connive to get more power

Personally, unless something real bad happens, like N Korea nukes S Korea or Pakistan nukes India, I don't forsee usage of high yeild nuclear weps in the near future. I would be quite fearful of a "dirty nuke" that terrorists might try and smuggle into countries.

Slith, read "Grimus," Rushdie's first novel.

Or "The Tyranny of Numbers" to work out how impossible it would be, collectively, to measure intelligence. (Say IQ and I'll scream.)

Or "Of Grammatalogy," to realize the extent to which most things genius go over everyone's head. By "everyone's" I mean yours.

Or "Foucault's Pendulum," so you can understand how a collective of obsessive intelligent people can seriously screw up the world.

Or "Brave New World" to get an idea how a society composed of solely the intelligentsia would implode.

Either get your head out of "Mein Kampf," or go ahead and just shoot yourself. (Incidentally, the most intelligent way to do it, i.e. your way, would be to aim the business end of the firearm at the back of your throat, tilted slightly upwards. For minimal pain and maximal efficiency.)



[This message has been edited by Gonzago (edited May 15, 2002).]

Somehow I see a scenario something like this:
The next major war will be over the control of fossil fuel energy. There was a small blip on this radar screen when the US went after Saddam Insane in the gulf war. This little conflagration wasn't about Iraq invading Kuwait, it was about the free flow of petroleum. Unfortunately for most of the world, G.Bush Sr. didn't get him out of power. Now this guy has had over 10 years to get his **** together, and gather more extremists.
I have a fear that someone in that part of the world will get their paws on some nuclear material and do something really stupid. They might do the 'dirty bomb' or even try to make a nuclear booby trap. Heaven help us if some nut actually aquires a full up weapon. If they can't get it into the US and set it off, they may go after Israel or some of the OPEC nations.
I don't know about you, I think that once the oil supply starts drying up and tempers start to flare, we can all expect to see nukes coming into the picture. Someone will set one off, and then it will be done. The thing will escalate unless cooler heads prevail.

There is no way to justify the use of nuclear weapons. Nagasaki was a war crime, but America won the war so no one dared to ask and everybody was in fear of nuclear war in the 50's. But Hiroshima was also a war crime: they should have use the bomb on some damn pacific island to show its powers not on the city where were killed mostly civilians (because they destroyed the whole city not just military buildings that were used as excuse)! Imagine they used it today! And yes i think that the greatest threat is from those damn terrorists and American's anti-missiles shield is of no use since the bombs will not be used as missiles! Lets hope that there is still trace of sanity in those Laden and company heads!


Edit: And yes, to not be :yot: : Yes it is bad!

[This message has been edited by total (edited June 16, 2002).]

They never would have wasted the bomb on an empty island; they barely had enough material to make the two they used plus the one they tested.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although tragic, probably saved 5 million lives and shortened WWII by at least 4-5 years! Casuality estimates for the allied amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands totalled in the millions (on both sides)

I don't think they are war crimes, but then again - I am an American and I see it differently. I think 50 years ago the end justified the means. We've had the capability to deliver nuclear warheads for over 50 years now, and we know the dangers and devastating effect of the weapon...And we have the sense to use it only in the direst of circumstances.

Unfortunately, nuclear proliferation will make the world a much more dangerous and unstable place. Think how violent times are now when any knucklehead with A 75 IQ can buy a gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger! Think of what one knucklehead with a nuclear device can do!Now you know why peasants weren't allowed to have swords in midieval times!

I just looked at my post above - I basically just typed the same thing over again...At least I know I haven't changed my mind!

[This message has been edited by Sir Belisarius (edited June 16, 2002).]

One weird thing: Generally it is claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a crime - because the death and destruction there were caused by dropping just two nukes. Actually the more "usual" firebomb raids (Tokyo - approx 200.000 deaths; Dresden, Hamburg, Lubeck and Cologne for example) of WW-II caused just as much if not more victims. Sure, one nuke can kill many, many more people than a conventional bomb but, as we say in Cologne "Kleinvieh macht auch Mist!" (or: The effects add up) :almostmad:

Victimwise I can't see a real difference between dropping one nuke or dropping 10.000 conventional bombs. Bombing cities with the simple aim to kill as many civilians as possible to weaken the enmies economy and morale is just outrageous. And in anticipation: "But it has saved our soldiers lives who had to fight otherwise when invading japan ..." is not really an argument.

Besides: In case anyone dares to come up with that the conventionally killing of millions is better than doing so nuclear (because of the lack of radioactive fallout) I will flame him to death. :almostmad:

Dissclaimer: No, please, no "But the german started city bombings in WW-II ... " **** ... please :almostmad::shame:

People do terrible things in wars, no matter the side. I dont think the past is what this topic is about :yot: (ooh I got to use a new smiley!:D)
I see no real difference between a soldier shooting one civilian with his rifle and one bomb killing 10 000, if you go to the bottom its the same thing only difference is quantity. People make horrid things in wars, so lets make sure we dont start any more of them!

My point was not so much about the past but about the minor difference between a conventional and a nuclear war from a victim's perspective.

Conventional war alone is bad enough: Iraq (after a conventional war) is still suffering from the utter annihilation of it's civilian infrastructure - as a pentagon report stated a result of the underrating of the destructive efficiency of modern precision guided munitions. It is no chance that serb powerplants were not blown up but only disabled by carbon fiber bombs. However, now - 10 years after the country is still not rebuilt (yes, it sure is Saddam's fault - undisputed) and people are still dieying from the secondary effects of the destructions in the war.
Isn't that practically so much different from residual radioation of fallout?

So what shall we fear more: The usual, everyday conventional mayhem or the (thanks god that till now nuclear deterrence has worked!) nuclear holocaust? If it's your land where the fighting is you just don't care.

"I dont think the past is what this topic is about"


The question was:
"Do you think the world leaders have enough sense not to do it?"

History has a direct impact on the answer to this question. Or at least, history will have a DiReCt impact on said world leaders decisions.

"If it's your land where the fighting is you just don't care."

Exactly. There are many people (some of whom I know) that cannot/will not imagine what being at 'ground zero' is like, regardless whether it's it with octol or Uranium/Plutonium.

War == Hell.

If War /= Hell, then you are not actually at War. "Police Actions" are one example.

I have a comment about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and why they're often considered war crimes...
In my opinion, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are thought to be so terrible because the nukes were dropped on a civilian population. Most of the other bombings (as far as I know) were directed at military targets in the cities, or at least, at civilian targets that supported the war effort.

hmm, I'm still trying to imagine on what pinpoint top priority military target in a city a nuclear or conventional firestorm (firestorms also were a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) could be aimed on ... :hmm: ... the tactic to first blow away the roofs of buildings to create rubble then to intentiously concentrate enough firebombs in a small area to ignite the rubble - aimed on causing a firestorm virtually "eating" it's way through the city (very efficient from a economical point of view: You only need to burn down one area - the firestorm will do the rest for the neighbouring areas), limited only by the amount of inflamable material material in its way and guided by it's own dynamics only - doesn't really sound to me like a way to hit a pinpoint military target like a single factory or even a number of factories ... and by dropping bombs at night guided by flares set by pathfinders you don't really improve your precision ... Let's assume the allieds knew what they did when burning cities in germany and japan. Insofar I still don't see the big difference between nuking and just burning a city.

And even if the firstorms are just considered as sad, accidental sideeffects of "precision bombing" military targets - don't you think that the death of let's say 50.000 people like in a smaller raid of WW-II are a somwhat high price, making it ... maybe a failure? Wake up, civilians were valid military targets in WW-II, that's the sad truth.

In the time of WW-II there was a kind of strategic thinking of some airpower theorists going into this direction: By destroying an enemy city from the air you will so utterly demoralize your enemy that he will surrender. While that may have worked in Guernica and Rotterdam it did not work when germany targeteted british cities (with the cities itself as argets first in the raids against Coventry and York) and not when the allieds targeted german cities. This thinking was at home in the heads of quite a number of airpower enthusiasts of that time. The use of nuclear bombs or nuclear missiles just continues that conceptual thinking.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited June 17, 2002).]