Nuclear War: The next step?

Remove all ads!

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[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).]