Nuclear weapons

[killgald]

Hello guys i want to know your opinion about the tacticals nuke in all the differents countrys with this kind of weapon... do you believe is fair to have this kind of massic destruction capability that can destroy the entire world? if there are no nukes in the world then it will be create another worse kind of weapon? what do you think?

[1713586138]

1713586138

[Decentradical]

The idea of a nuclear conflict escalating into nukes wiping everything off the face of the Earth is very superficial. A nuclear conflict will pan out more subtly than that. Should a country ever use nuclear weapons against another then that country will prioritise targets that incapacitate the enemy and make them unable to retaliate properly.  

A nuclear first strike will be aimed at disabling a country's military so that it capitulates quickly.

That means that a first strike per definition won't involve cross continental nuclear missiles. Satellites watch the silos and the warning will happen so early that the country already initiates it's own strike.  
The first strike would be carried out with submarines. Hitting densely populated areas may sound terrifying but it's a really low-priority compared to airbases and military assets. Disabling the other country's bombers is the best way to lower the amount of weapons heading your way.  

And because you want the country to capitulate you specifically WON'T hit the large cities. They're your hostages. They are what a country stands to lose if they don't cooperate properly. You also won't hit the government because you need that government waving a white flag unless you want the entire nation to turn into a failed state which won't benefit you at all.

I wouldn't want to live anywhere near airbases or military ports when tensions run high. Especially not down-wind. But other than that, most people should be fine in a nuclear conflict. They won't be targeted,  nation states think differently than Hollywood script writers.


Nuclear weapons in the hand of rogue states however, that's a different thing entirely. Those weapons are wielded ideologically rather than strategically. Terrorists or megalomaniac dictators will seek to cause maximum casualties to claim their name in the history books.

[darkangel11]

The idea of a nuclear conflict escalating into nukes wiping everything off the face of the Earth is very superficial. A nuclear conflict will pan out more subtly than that. Should a country ever use nuclear weapons against another then that country will prioritise targets that incapacitate the enemy and make them unable to retaliate properly.  

A nuclear first strike will be aimed at disabling a country's military so that it capitulates quickly.

That means that a first strike per definition won't involve cross continental nuclear missiles. Satellites watch the silos and the warning will happen so early that the country already initiates it's own strike.  
The first strike would be carried out with submarines. Hitting densely populated areas may sound terrifying but it's a really low-priority compared to airbases and military assets. Disabling the other country's bombers is the best way to lower the amount of weapons heading your way.  

And because you want the country to capitulate you specifically WON'T hit the large cities. They're your hostages. They are what a country stands to lose if they don't cooperate properly. You also won't hit the government because you need that government waving a white flag unless you want the entire nation to turn into a failed state which won't benefit you at all.

I wouldn't want to live anywhere near airbases or military ports when tensions run high. Especially not down-wind. But other than that, most people should be fine in a nuclear conflict. They won't be targeted,  nation states think differently than Hollywood script writers.

That's true in a way. There's no gain in destroying a country, it's much better to force it to give up land, give resource, pay homage
I said "in a way" because there are people like Kim, who would destroy a country just to prove a point. Nuclear weapons in the hands of lunatics can be very dangerous.

Nuclear weapons aren't the most powerful thing you can build. There are much worse things, biological weapons being one.

[Lancusters]

I believe fair. It is the presence of nuclear weapons allowed the world to exist without a global war 72. The world has never lived for so long a peaceful life. If there were no nuclear weapons the US and Russia would be fought during the Cuban missile crisis.

[snipie]

Until now, the politicians are quite using their brains, hiding their anger and using a diplomatic channels to solve the problems
Assuming that uncle Kim is having a nuke and the old guy in the white house didn't like his morning cookies...well that could escalate to a war in which the two parties could use the nukes if they feel that the end of its regimen is soon
Of course, Seoul will take all the damage, maybe Japan too?

[Lancusters]

Until now, the politicians are quite using their brains, hiding their anger and using a diplomatic channels to solve the problems
Assuming that uncle Kim is having a nuke and the old guy in the white house didn't like his morning cookies...well that could escalate to a war in which the two parties could use the nukes if they feel that the end of its regimen is soon
Of course, Seoul will take all the damage, maybe Japan too?

Sooner or later it has to happen. I hope that South Korea and Japan will not be affected. Kim is too bad the rocket to represent a danger to America. With drchau side no one saw us missile defense system in action. Maybe they are really that good they did not miss a single rocket.

[Sithara007]

I believe fair. It is the presence of nuclear weapons allowed the world to exist without a global war 72. The world has never lived for so long a peaceful life. If there were no nuclear weapons the US and Russia would be fought during the Cuban missile crisis.

I never thought like that. Perhaps you are having a valid point. Just look at Iran and the DPRK. I believe that one of the reasons why they were never invaded by the NATO (unlike Iraq and Libya), was due to the fact that they are having nuclear weapons.

[Mario274]

Hello guys i want to know your opinion about the tacticals nuke in all the differents countrys with this kind of weapon... do you believe is fair to have this kind of massic destruction capability that can destroy the entire world? if there are no nukes in the world then it will be create another worse kind of weapon? what do you think?

I think even with the presence of nuclear weapons, human greed will want to create even more advanced weapons.

[gollygosh]

The US army came up with a nuke grenade - but couldn't find anyone dumb enough to throw it - but we do have leaders who are dumb enough to throw tactical nukes. Tells you a lot.

[Mometaskers]

I guess that nukes are best for mutually-assured destruction (MAD). Supposedly the possibility of a nuclear war would force would be belligerents to handle their issues diplomatically.

I think nukes are not the only reason there have been no large wars for a long time. Economic integration has caused countries to behave themselves since war is bad for business (unless you business is war). Take Europe for example, where nation-states in the past has warred with each other on a fairly regular basis. The creation of EU has pretty much prevented the member from going to war with each other.

Still, never underestimate human stupidity. Nuclear winter is still a possibility.

[kpcian]

Yeah, I believe that if nuclear weapons had not been created then another massive weapons would have been created, people always looking for exceptional and more destructive things. They always trying to keep control on others by creating something else. So it would be happen.

[merchantofzeny]

Nuclear weapon, or the threat of having one, is a reason that Iran and North Korea as still not being invaded.

[Lieldoryn]

Nuclear weapon, or the threat of having one, is a reason that Iran and North Korea as still not being invaded.

You are wrong. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. They only are developing and North Korea may pose a threat only to its neighbors so that America is not afraid of them, too. They are not just attacked because they give them a chance for a peaceful solution to this problem.

[leademepls]

On one hand you wish they were never created. On the other without the MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) policy the cold war might have turned hot at some point and who knows what kind of world we'd have today. A conventional world war some time during the 70s for example wouldn't have destroyed the planet's ecosystem, but it sure would have costed many young men's lives. Whoever won we'd still be feeling the consequences today.

For small countries like mine overshadowed by big aggressive neighbors they are the perfect deterrent against being bullied by the bigger guy. Much like the threat of Izrael's supposed nuclear arsenal is there to scare off their big and powerful Arab neighbors.

[DeanShow]

On one hand you wish they were never created. On the other without the MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) policy the cold war might have turned hot at some point and who knows what kind of world we'd have today. A conventional world war some time during the 70s for example wouldn't have destroyed the planet's ecosystem, but it sure would have costed many young men's lives. Whoever won we'd still be feeling the consequences today.

For small countries like mine overshadowed by big aggressive neighbors they are the perfect deterrent against being bullied by the bigger guy. Much like the threat of Izrael's supposed nuclear arsenal is there to scare off their big and powerful Arab neighbors.

It seems to me that you are mistaken. All Arab countries are not at war with Israel only because they are afraid of US. They are the ally of Israel and will not leave him in the lurch.

[Sithara007]

Nuclear weapon, or the threat of having one, is a reason that Iran and North Korea as still not being invaded.

I would agree with you on North Korea. The only reason why they are still not being invaded is due to the fact that they are having nuclear weapons. But I am not sure about Iran. They are saying that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program. But who knows for sure?

[Alexzap]

Nuclear weapon, or the threat of having one, is a reason that Iran and North Korea as still not being invaded.

I would agree with you on North Korea. The only reason why they are still not being invaded is due to the fact that they are having nuclear weapons. But I am not sure about Iran. They are saying that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program. But who knows for sure?

Who said that North Korea fear? It seems to me that the Americans just deciding how to destroy the Kim regime. The Americans can turn all of North Korea into ruins in one day. While Kim has no chance to respond adequately to the United States.

[Eternu]

Hello guys i want to know your opinion about the tacticals nuke in all the differents countrys with this kind of weapon... do you believe is fair to have this kind of massic destruction capability that can destroy the entire world? if there are no nukes in the world then it will be create another worse kind of weapon? what do you think?

If we look in past, we can see bloody past, filled with destruction and pain. People have always fought for something, and will continue to do. In past human race has always been working on how to better destroy there enemies, so that leads us to better weapon and better things for destruction. There will always be people who will make weapon out of something that is meant for helping people. Because War, war never change us...

[Daniel91]

Nuclear weapon, or the threat of having one, is a reason that Iran and North Korea as still not being invaded.

I would agree with you on North Korea. The only reason why they are still not being invaded is due to the fact that they are having nuclear weapons. But I am not sure about Iran. They are saying that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program. But who knows for sure?

Who said that North Korea fear? It seems to me that the Americans just deciding how to destroy the Kim regime. The Americans can turn all of North Korea into ruins in one day. While Kim has no chance to respond adequately to the United States.

It's fact that their leader Kim is only decision maker in whole country.
There is no democracy of any kind of government control there.
Another fact is that Kim is crazy and mentally unstable.
So, do you understand now why all neighbors around North Korea, South Korea, Japan... fear Kim and his nuclear bombs.
They don't want to destroy North Korea but to destroy their nuclear bombs.
Seoul, capitol of South Korea, is only a half hour drive from the border with the north Korea.
If anything happen, millions of people there will be killed.
Kim is threat to all international community.
He don't listen numerous resolutions from UN and continue his nuclear program.
Other countries, with nuclear weapons, USA, Russia, UK etc, are stable and with strong government control, so they are not threat to others because of their nuclear weapons.
They will never use nuclear bombs against any other country.
Kim is different story.

[Faiyz]

Speculations on world war 3 are now comming in with the inclutions of terrorists. More and more terrorist are emerging in the middle east areas still with the same reason over and over. And probably bombing to show violence is bad is a very bad irony on the government but what can government do to at least give justice on terrorists?