Debate and Discussion

Nuclear ambitions
imshard at 11:12AM, Feb. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
I was hoping to get a feel on everybody's views with the current state of nuclear proliferation in the world. Tensions in the nuclear club are high right now. Iran and Israel are continuing to grapple over each other's claims of nuclear weapons development. The US is also expressing renewed interest in North Korea as they threaten to test missiles that could reach the California and Alaska and their continued refusal to turn over its existing stockpile of weaponized plutonium. Even Russia is behaving threateningly in response to EU, and NATO plans to install missile shields in the former eastern block.

What is your opinion on the nuclear agitators and antagonists DrunkDuck?
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 2:55PM, Feb. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
“agitators and antagonists” from the point of veiw mainly of the U.S. and Nato countries. ;)

It's mostly all hot air.

There are only a few countries you have to be concerned about:

1. U.SA.-
Aggressively pushing forward a military advantage in Eastern Europe and the middle east, with the aforementioned “missile shield” and occupation of two countries. Bases being set up everywhere, missile systems and infrastructure on everyone's doorstep intimidating and threatening. Actively wooing, enticing and stripping away Russia's former allies…
Stoking tensions to boiling around the world… Even with South America.
NATO with the U.S. at its head is very much a force for instability, very much a negative influence on the world.

2. Israel.
traditionally warlike, along with the U.S. works to actively isolate Iran giving them no other options. Frequently threatens and begs to invade Iran. Stokes tensions with its neighbours. Actions against it's occupied Palestinian populace cause much consternation and stoke tensions in the middle east constantly.

3. India and Pakistan.
These two rivals are the only ones who are likely, able, or willing to start a nuclear war any time soon. This relationship is in constant danger.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
imshard at 10:31PM, Feb. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
“agitators and antagonists” from the point of veiw mainly of the U.S. and Nato countries. ;)

It's mostly all hot air.

There are only a few countries you have to be concerned about:

….

Rofl, by agitators and antagonists I did mean to include the US and its counterparts on the other side of the fence. 8D

From the US end, our view of it all is a bit less … Vile sounding.
Really its just business as usual for us. Most living and active Americans have never known a time when we did not have foreign bases overseas. We let our allies keep bases on our soil too. (I should know, I have to live with the RAF jets passing over my apartment daily. And imagine the fun when the Saudi's bring in the jets they bought from us to get serviced. Happens about twice a year, my sleep suffers every time). It seems perfectly natural to us that such bases move and change. Most Americans really aren't even aware of the world stage nor care to be. In such a hands off atmosphere the same politicians and military officers that got into positions at the end of the cold war continue to operate the same cultural, and societal apparatus built to fight the Soviets if for no other reason than its familiar and easy. Since there's no Soviets they settle for more mundane pursuits.

As for Israel I respect their warrior spirit but I don't know why we still consider them allies. They have the valid argument that they're fighting for survival as a nation, though its become a very take-take relationship where we don't get much in return. Oh wait I forgot, its a factory for presidents to get photo-ops and look good for “promoting peace”.
To me its high time we swept the rug with Iran and settled our differences. Though to be honest I don't think they're willing to let the US off the hook so easily. (I get to be opinionated, I've lived with too many expatriated Persians to not be familiar with their mindset)

Also India and Pakistan have abstained very well so far. With recent stress from various terrorist attacks in India that could change though. Especially as it becomes increasingly unclear how the Pakistani government may or may not be related to the incidents.

Having family in Japan keeps me VERY abreast of the concerns about North K though. Even if they don't have nukes ready, their missiles could still deliver conventional weapons that would wreak havoc on Japan. With their small defense force and ban on offensive capability they're quite dependent on US protection. That ignores the fact that Korea does in fact have enough material confirmed for at least 5 nukes and as many as 10. Japan for one WANTS more US assistance and intervention with such a clearly hostile neighbor.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bravo1102 at 3:12AM, Feb. 18, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,224
joined: 1-21-2008
Ozone's right. When viewed from anyone else's perspective the dominant and hegemonic moves of NATO and the US (with Eastern Europe all lining up to join) is terrifying. There seems to be no counter-balance. A nuclear balance is something to strive for to restore a balance of power as opposed to the very uneven see-saw in the world now. I don't say every nation should strive to be the USA or even Israel, but how about India? (And doesn't Turkey have nukes?)

Can Iran, North Korea achieve parity with the USA and NATO? No, but they can hope to strike a balance in their parts of the world.

In its overseas affairs the USA keeps acting like the drunken barroom brawler who's too full of himself. The world isn't a Hollywood Western.

As for US bases overseas; they're just a way to torture or tease US Servicemen and give veterans lots of off-color stories to tell. Compared to what the US presence overseas used to be (1960s-1970s) and what it is now; it's a lot smaller. And I mean a lot. Even the US presence in Europe is more noticable now by the closed bases than the ones still open.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Polkster at 2:14AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
imshard
I was hoping to get a feel on everybody's views with the current state of nuclear proliferation in the world. Tensions in the nuclear club are high right now. Iran and Israel are continuing to grapple over each other's claims of nuclear weapons development. The US is also expressing renewed interest in North Korea as they threaten to test missiles that could reach the California and Alaska and their continued refusal to turn over its existing stockpile of weaponized plutonium. Even Russia is behaving threateningly in response to EU, and NATO plans to install missile shields in the former eastern block.

What is your opinion on the nuclear agitators and antagonists DrunkDuck?


It doesn't matter; every one of those countries that isn't the US or Russia falls under the burden of mutually assured destruction. In targeting the US they simply fall under the assurance of destruction.

Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, will never amass a nuclear payload comparable to the United States'. We have what, 12,000 warheads?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
imshard at 6:04AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
The US has 367 deployed and ready for launch, 3,696 active warheads that can be launched, and 9,962 total.

Russia Maintains 6,681 active warheads and has a stockpile of ~15-20,000 total.

Though its more a matter of not wanting even a single city vaporized, not that they could rival another country's stockpile.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Polkster at 6:56AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
imshard
The US has 367 deployed and ready for launch, 3,696 active warheads that can be launched, and 9,962 total.

Russia Maintains 6,681 active warheads and has a stockpile of ~15-20,000 total.

Though its more a matter of not wanting even a single city vaporized, not that they could rival another country's stockpile.

Nonetheless, any nation other than Russia launching a nuke at us would guarantee their complete and total annihilation.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
imshard at 7:14AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
As so many people have pointed out though these countries already feel backed into a corner and are desperate to try and establish parity. They may be willing to use the weapon if they feel annihilation is inevitable.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bravo1102 at 7:27AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,224
joined: 1-21-2008
imshard
The US has 367 deployed and ready for launch, 3,696 active warheads that can be launched, and 9,962 total.

Russia Maintains 6,681 active warheads and has a stockpile of ~15-20,000 total.

Though its more a matter of not wanting even a single city vaporized, not that they could rival another country's stockpile.

We all assume that any nuclear weapon is big enough to vaporize a city. That is a strategic nuclear weapon, not a battlefield nuclear weapon. While true that one nuclear weapon is one too many (and will ruin your whole day) there's a huge difference between an Indian IRBM, an Israeli aircraft carried one and US Peacekeeper misiles or B-2 Stealth bombers. People don't realize that most US aren't even over 1 megaton. TO me it's scary that the list doesn't seem to include the US battlefield nuclear weapons (It's only the strategic ICBMs, IRBMs and strategic bomber stockpiles, not the shared NATO tactical stocks like the small yield ones you can hang on any fighter bomber which Turkey has access to)

An artillery shell or an F-16 with a 15 KT nuclear weapon coudl be a lot more dangerous than that IRBM. ICBMs and IRBMs attract lots of attention. What's another cannon among a battery? What's another bomb among a plane's payload?

After all the Japanese didn't think a single B-29 flying over Hiroshima was any threat.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Polkster at 9:09AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
imshard
As so many people have pointed out though these countries already feel backed into a corner and are desperate to try and establish parity. They may be willing to use the weapon if they feel annihilation is inevitable.

So what? How does that impact my argument?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
imshard at 9:24AM, Feb. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Polkster
So what? How does that impact my argument?

You seemed to indicate the impossibility of winning a nuke war with the US would discourage other countries from using nukes. It was a redirect of your point into supporting my own. the fact they couldn't win against the US means they could be MORE willing to take a single righteous stab at the behemoth towering over them.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Polkster at 1:48AM, Feb. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
imshard
Polkster
So what? How does that impact my argument?

You seemed to indicate the impossibility of winning a nuke war with the US would discourage other countries from using nukes. It was a redirect of your point into supporting my own. the fact they couldn't win against the US means they could be MORE willing to take a single righteous stab at the behemoth towering over them.

I think you overestimate the zeal of some of these third world theocrats. Take everything they say with a grain of salt, it's all image after all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
imshard at 8:17AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Polkster
imshard
Polkster
So what? How does that impact my argument?

You seemed to indicate the impossibility of winning a nuke war with the US would discourage other countries from using nukes. It was a redirect of your point into supporting my own. the fact they couldn't win against the US means they could be MORE willing to take a single righteous stab at the behemoth towering over them.

I think you overestimate the zeal of some of these third world theocrats. Take everything they say with a grain of salt, it's all image after all.

Its not their zealousness I'm afraid of, its human nature I fear. Angry and irrational people will do horrible things to each other. Put two kennels side-by-side, feed the dogs will in one kennel and nearly starve the ones in the other. The starving dogs will tear through metal to get at the smallest morsel and kill any dog in its way to get there. Desperation is a dangerous thing and make no doubt. Do you really want to hang a juicy steak out there and see what they do to get it?
Even with the zealots though. What happens if an extremist goes rogue and seizes control of a missile? Do you really want a suicide bomber with access to a mega tonnage device?
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 9:14AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Your dog analogy is flawed: those creatures are trying to ensure survival. It's brutal, but wholly logical. You're relating that to a fictional illogical scenario of national suicide. There's no correlation.

Small nations with nuclear ambition have a defence motive.
——————–

The logic of world strategic affairs is amazingly warped and distorted when looked at from the point of view of the dominant :)
All smaller forces that show defiance or attack potential of any sort are automatically seen as a threat.
It's like a man contemplating a bee- can give him a painful sting, can even be deadly if he's allergic… But really, bees aren't usually a threat even if the man IS allergic (I should know, I am and they're always in my garden :) ).

Like the bee sting, the deterrent for the smaller nations is to prevent them being attacked. The entire argument is really extremely fanciful and ridiculous. A nuclear weapons is just a much larger class of explosive, forget the horrors of radiation sickness etc- they're incidental to the use of the weapon.
So what you potentially have is a country like Iran getting access to a small yield device (an EXTREMELY small supply and no probability of production rate). What can they do with it? Think about it Imshard.

-It would probably be as powerful as the little one that was dropped on Hiroshima. Despite the reputation, and image, not that may people died compared to other war actions. So you're looking at politically isolated countries with potentially a handful of nuclear devices that they barely have the technology to deliver more that 500KM, with very limited power. -Means they couldn't actually do much damage with them anyway. Their complete defeat and annihilation is assured for the chance of doing very little harm (relatively).

That's why they're not a real threat.
————————–

It's countries that DO have the potential and the willingness to use nuclear weapons that are threats to us all. Throughout the cold war it was the United States that reserved the right to make the first strike, right up to the end. The “Evil Empire” had a policy of retaliatory strikes. I was aware of that in the 80's so I was a lot more scared or Regan (fucking nutter that he was) rather than Gorbachov.

Bravo's mention of those smaller devices is the best indication of the real problem.

And right now the U.S. has Bush's legacy of the “Missile shield”, that surrounds Russia funnily enough. That's more dangerous than small countries with exaggerated weapons programs: the strategic possibility it offers is the chance to be able to attack someone with deadly nuclear force and not have to worry abut retaliatory strikes in return.- So that any country with a defence against nuclear weapons is actually able to use them with impunity.

Thank goodness it doesn't yet work that well… But one day it might. :(
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
imshard at 9:33AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
As a result of treaties with Russia, China and the UN, the United States is only allowed to use nuclear devices AFTER being attacked with a similar device and ONLY if it is known that more are en route.

On top of that 20+ years of “awareness” training has reduced the our willingness to use such weapons down to near zero.

Insiders can also tell you that the US nuclear weapons program is a running joke these days as well. Funding was strangled under carter and bush one. It was bureaucratized to death and the original strategic air command was folded into other departments resulting in a weak, slow, and decentralized structure. At the height of the cold war the US could have a response firing within 5 minutes of detecting enemy launches.

Now a launch takes approximately an hour and requires that a US interest take a hit first. You have little to fear from the Bully on the Block preemptively nuking somebody.

The question is whether a hostile country would use one out of fear the US would engage a conventional war against them.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 10:03AM, Feb. 27, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
The missile silos are still staffed by “the best and brightest”. Bombers still fly with armed nuclear payloads (albeit by accident lol!) The political, military, and bureaucratic route to using them is still straighter than it is in countries without even the weapons to use.
imshard
The question is whether a hostile country would use one out of fear the US would engage a conventional war against them.
How would they use them? They're not even a threat for an actively invading army:

Say Iran actually developed a couple of viable nuclear devices and mounted them on some of their more reliable missiles (the longer range ones tend to break up in the atmosphere and are really quite uncontrollable). Now the U.S. decides to attack-
The optimum use of those weapons would be against a carrier battlegroup, large air base (in Turkey, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia…). Even if they did manage to hit, that would be a comparative pinprick to the United states fighting strength: a bee sting to a man who is very definitely not allergic. NOT a “Pearl Harbour”.
After the first usage of such a device, their fate is sealed.

But it really is fantasy to think it could ever get that far.
———-

The idea that a small politically isolated country might attack the United states with a small nuclear device out of fear that they might be attacked themselves is ridiculous. Such a thing would be extremely difficult to undertake, very unlikely to succeed (and even if it did it likely wouldn't be too bad), and simply ensure that they were attacked.

No, the united states has nothing to fear directly from these smaller countries. Russia and China are still the main concerns. REAL concerns focus around regional power balances- how intimidating is such a country to its neighbours? If their neighbours are our allies what do we have to do to make them feel safe and so keep them as our allies?
That sort of thing. -_-
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
imshard at 12:05AM, Feb. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Soooooo they should be given free reign to develop weapons that are a threat?

Its not what they CAN do right now its what would happen if they are allowed to build weapons that ARE a threat in the future.

Using your example of two missiles, one missile to Jerusalem and another to Baghdad really would be a disaster. The effects of a single nuke ( even a low yield one ) on the atmosphere would be catastrophic. Are you really trying to say it would be OK if Iran set off a nuke? The result of any nuke going off anywhere for any reason is unacceptable. Besides, its not whether they're a threat to the USA its about whether they're a threat to humanity.

Do you know how many times the US and Russia came to igniting the cold war? How many reports of bad intelligence and false positives resulted in full alert? 27 separate times one side or the other tried to override protocol and launch. and that's just the ones we know about. Do you want the same thing happening in Asia and actually result in a launch? In a pressure cooker like the middle east it is simply unacceptable to allow the risk of nuclear proliferation. You don't even want to allow the possibility.

Also I think you overestimate the USA's current strength. We're struggling to keep up an occupation force in two countries. It took us weeks to respond to a hurricane in one of our own cities. We might survive the impact of a nuke, but really any strain right now could doom us. If Iraq or Afghanistan took a hit our operational capability would be crippled. We wouldn't have enough forces to adequately protect out actual territory let alone continue protecting the Allies who continue to request our presence and support.

And no it wouldn't be that hard to utilize a nuke. Even the first US deployed nukes were little more than cruise missiles guided by ground proximity sensors. The mace and matador missiles deployed in west Germany didn't even need presidential approval to launch. Once created its relatively easy to use a nuke. All the safeties and special measures the US and Russia use are cliches. A “rogue” nation is under no rules of conduct. No keys, no codes, no control are actually necessary to set one off. All it takes is the flip of a switch.

I don't support my country's position on Iran but I understand it. As it stands the “little” countries really don't pose a real threat to the US directly. Its about prevention of something horrible. Myself? I really don't want Japan to get sizzled again either.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Backstaber at 3:16PM, Feb. 28, 2009
(offline)
posts: 54
joined: 11-19-2008
Iran launched a satilite into space. That is a hell of a lot more complicated and difficult then launching a missile at another city in another country.

So imshard pretty much has it right here IMO.

More nuclear weapons increases the risks of large amounts of human life being lost, especially in an area of the world that has a history of being very volatile and unstable.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:15AM
ozoneocean at 7:29PM, Feb. 28, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Backstaber- They claimed that, but reports say their rocket broke up in the atmosphere. It's not harder than launching a guided missile at another state. neither of you grasp that concept very well. -_-
imshard
Soooooo they should be given free reign to develop weapons that are a threat?
No I don't say they should be “let” to do anything. That's an amazingly patriarchal notion… These countries aren't naughty children that need guidance.
But diplomatically you could steer them away from the need to acquire weapons.

No Imshard, Small nuclear weapons wouldn't be that bad, anywhere. You should do a bit of reading into them. The use of nuclear weapons is never positive and fall out isn't a nice thing, but at the sizes Iran or North Korea could produce they do relatively little damage. Read about Hiroshima and compare that to the fire bombing of Tokyo. The Hiroshima bomb was more shocking because of the amount of destruction form a single device, not for the actual destruction itself.

————————-
More Nukes doesn't increase anything except the amount of nukes. What increases the loss of lives is large paranoid nations who have no qualms about meeting out destruction to others with little or no risk to themselves.

-Imshard- Nuclear weapons ARE difficult to deploy since they have to be made into a form that can be deployed in your chosen fashion. I'm sorry, but that's not as easy as you imagine. You have to remember that places like North Korea etc are at the state that the U.S. was at in 1944. So you're talking big bombers, easy to spot, shoot down… :)

I don't overestimate the ability of the U.S. but I think you misunderstand the strategic realities. number 1 you're thinking of the 80's stand off situation between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. That's completely silly for obvious reasons. Number 2 you don't realise that the U.S. military even as it is was completely set up around the idea of fighting a global nuclear power- it can cope with such threats a lot easier than it can with the last two little wars.
Number 3, you don't realise that once a country uses a nuclear weapon in attack, it ups the ante: That fact makes IT far game for nuclear retaliation. This simplifies the whole situation immensely :)
And that's a fact of which EVERY country is fully and painfully aware.

I really don't think I need to go too far into this, all the facts are laid out, it all quite obvious… As far as I can see your only problem is that you still think of places like North Korea and Iraq as dangerously stupid and suicidal… Well that's old rightwing propaganda. It'll blow away eventually. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
imshard at 1:16AM, March 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
…. I don't even know how to approach that point Ozone. You actually posited that a nuclear detonation would be OK. hmmm, wow. Do I even need to explain myself on that one? Kiloton scale blasts can render hundreds to thousands of square kilometers uninhabitable. A 1-megaton blast could take out a large city. Even simple nuke has the ability to yield a 20 KT explosion. If it went off in the middle east the entire fuel infrastructure for the world would disappear. If it hit asia you could actually measure a percentage drop in the world population.

As for utilization ozone, let me get this straight: Its hard to deploy one because its hard to choose one?
ozoneocean
Nuclear weapons ARE difficult to deploy since they have to be made into a form that can be deployed in your chosen fashion.
Do YOUR research Ozy. Just like any bomb all it takes to set it off is a infinitesimally short pulse of electric to ignite the explosive charges. Nukes have been deployed as mines, artillery shells, mortars, even suitcase sized “pocket” nukes. You don't even need a damn missile and short ranged missiles are easy to make. Even a standard delivery system that we know these countries already posses could be adapted to the purpose of launching a nuke.

Even powerful nukes consist of a lump ranging from a walnut to a grapefruit size wrapped in compression plates (up to 1cm thick usually) and a handful of detonators about the periphery. Meaning any delivery method capable of holding something the size of a milk crate could deliver blasts equivalent to God's wrath to an area with an ensuing plague of living death to follow.

You want to put my words into a cold war context try this on: We walked away from the precipice once already. Our planet is teetering on ecological breakdown already. The tests of nukes had to be stopped before, because it brought us to the edge of eliminating the delicate life-giving balance in our atmosphere. One or two nukes going off in the air could destroy us all.

Even if just one goes off just the sheer panic of the world population as the entire human race reels with the enormity of the action could set us all back decades. Even if the use of a nuke didn't tip the ecosystem over the edge, if its deployment was so bumbled that it had no bearing on forces and infrastructure, the psychological effect would be unrecoverable. On both the duelists and the audience.

Which brings me back to prevention. Screw the USA, its a matter of the greatest good at this point. Allowing more nukes into the world is a bad idea for all humanity. That goes for ANY size nuke. The danger states working towards nukes couldn't possibly hope to use them defensively. The very act of developing them means they hope to leverage them over other nations. Needless to say that shouldn't be allowed by anybody. Yes it “ups the ante” and if it means they wouldn't be a backyard yokel with a cute regime, anybody would jump the chance to play the big time. Volatile, stupid, suicidal or not, they shouldn't be able to use nukes like a bargaining chip. That nightmare ended with the soviet union, and it should stay in its grave.

So No, I'm sorry but you can't win this one Ozone. I can't believe you argued in favor of proliferation. There is NO acceptable use of a Nuke. Not even a “little” one.

EDIT: Also, these are not rumors or propaganda. These countries have stated intentions to pursue nuclear programs. North Korea concerns me greatest because not only does it have confirmed weapons material, it also declared an actual intent to build the weapons.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bravo1102 at 10:18AM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,224
joined: 1-21-2008
One nuclear weapon is one too many for anyone. Massive retaliation works because it is massive No one would win if the USA went full bore with its nuclear force. Mirv'd SLBMs (Trident) would blanket the world without any need of any land based silo ever being used.

On the other hand, North Korea doesn't need a missile or a large bomber. They'll have a weapon that can be hung under their normal attack aircraft. Or they'll have a weapon you can fire from a normal cannon. Send a bombing raid on Seoul with a large force of bombers/attack aircraft, they will get through. One cruise missile under radar? They can use the anti-shipping missiles they already have.

As for the current first rate battlefield weapons they don't resemble the weapons fielded even in the 1970s. They're all for magnetic pulse more than blast. On the other hand a small nation's weapon would be a Hiroshima type weapon that if air burst would cause radiation along the lines of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and NOT be in the megaton range that would wipe out a whole city but it would do enough damage. Would any nuclear power risk massive retaliation on an Iran if it used its handful of weapons (probably in one launch?) A handful of weapons, good-bye the Middle East (very small area) and maybe a carrier group. Which is too much.

The small yield doesn't matter. It's still too much and missiles are flashy and impressive, but hardly necessary. Iran, North Korea have the aircraft and artillery to deliver a nuclear weapon quite handily without them. It's prestige. Why do small countries need large bombers as opposed to strike aricraft? Big bombs and air launched cruise missiles.

That's what's scary.

And Imshard all those nuclear land mines, etc were neat 1950's toys, not anything to be taken realistically. My favorite was Davy Crockett which was a nuclear tactical weapon fired from a jeep where the launcher would be within the blast radius.

And you are aware that South Korea fields Honest Johns? Conventional warheads, but they were designed as a nuclear missile… wouldn't take long to convert them back… and every US carrier group has nuclear weapons among the carrier's stores (kiloton “tactical” weapons) as well as nuclear cruise missiles. Prestige and the threat of the massive stockpiles of even Great Britain or France.

Oh and suitcase weapons are more like trunks. I knew some special forces guys trained in their use.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
imshard at 12:49PM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bravo1102
Oh and suitcase weapons are more like trunks. I knew some special forces guys trained in their use.



That's a mighty small trunk. lol!

Also I was just making a point about delivery options (like mines, and suitcases), specifically that there are a lot of them. Not necessarily that those are the ones I think would be used.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
7he_7ruth at 7:58PM, March 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 14
joined: 2-16-2009
I think we're making the assumption that human beings are stupid and the people in power of said nations (Russia, USA, North Korea, Iran, India and Pakistan) are too. Yes nuclear weapons are destructive devices that can be said that gives human beings the destructive hands of God, other than the use of targets at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they haven't been used against another human being since.

Reason, in this day and age, a nuclear weapon is more deterent and, dare I say it, - had protected this world from a major war since the end of the Cold War. I can say safely that if nuclear weapons hadn't been developed America and the Soviets would've have slugged it out in World War III with another conflict in Europe which we would've had more men dead than needed. Heck, after World War II everyone was expecting it, but when the atomic bomb turned into the nuclear missile, that wasn't going to happen.

Now, let's fast forward fifty years to the present. Pakistan and India, they are like North and South Korea in every sense and they both hold more nuclear weapons to kill millions but do you really think it will happen? Doubtful, for the simple fact that millions of lives are in the balance and the utter destruction of both nations isn't something anyone wants. Plus the political channels are in place, the phones, the ambassadors, they are doing everything possible to prevent something like that from happening and guess what? It's working.

Go a couple thousand miles you have North and South Korea, they are in the same position but for the simple fact that North Korea is a couple years behind the development of nuclear weapons and that they still are struggling with missile systems they couldn't contend with their southern neighbor. But let's just say they developed nuclear missile with a multi-kiloton range, would they use it? A couple thousand Americans storming their shores as well as the godforsaken nuclear retaliation that will literally obliterate their population would prevent that from happening. Then you have to realize is what do they have to gain? Millions dead for another nation that doesn't have anything they want… Not worth it.

Now we have the last bad boy on the list, Iran. They develop nuclear weapons and use them against Israel, the fallout from that would be something that would do more harm than good. Killing a couple million Jews may look good for them in the long run but would destroying the Holy Land as well as letting their fellow neighbors come under nuclear fallout killing their allies as well. Would they want to risk that? Now after that, you have a pissed off planet and American army in Iraq and in Turkey poised, then our nuclear option comes into effect… Then they're off the map in a blink of an eye.

As I see it, the world has an extreme possibility of nuclear war, but if we risk the species of humanity on it isn't worth it. A country's future doesn't make it better than the world's, and everyone with two IQ points knows that. You don't risk that, and thus you have mutual toleration between nations and occasional fighting with those who don't have nuclear weapons. You know why South Africa is relatively peaceful when the rest of Africa goes to hell? Simple reason is that they have a nuclear option and they -most likely- won't hesitate to use it, retaliation wouldn't come and the world stage wouldn't give a damn -as cruel as it sounds. Thus, the African's leave the nation alone, and a smart move on their part. The nations with nuclear weapons will not use them, and thus we can all sleep safely at night that a nuclear explosion in our backyard isn't going to happen…

last edited on July 14, 2011 10:44AM
bravo1102 at 3:23AM, March 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,224
joined: 1-21-2008
Imshard, I'm surprised you fell for that. It's a wishful thinking mock-up. Disinformation a lot like that made-up mobile chemical weapons lab Colin Powell detailed to the United Nations.

Even if one is that small it is very heavy and could pull your arm off. The yield would be very low and used for the shock value and the magnetic pulse. Effects that are potentially far more serious than the typical imagine fireball. Imagine every electronic item within a hundred square miles being rendered useless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved