First pro-nuclear weapons argument I've read that nearly changed my mind!

[eclipsenow]

Hi everyone,
While I'm a fan of nuclear power, I've never been a fan of nuclear bombs. I was a teenager in the 1980's and the Cold War gave me terrible nightmares of it suddenly going very, very 'hot'. However, this essay has made me rethink my stance. What do others think?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...pons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2c9d5188522f

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pretty stupid.

 

[super animator]

Ah, yes MAD. A blessing and a curse.

 

[Sketcher]

Personally, I think that nuclear weapons are a technological advance that we can't keep out of foreign hands forever. But I am not in favor of nuclear proliferation, because I want us to have an edge, and I want them to be hard for terrorists who have no particular loyalty to a given government to obtain. If there's no return address so to speak, there's no deterrence.

 

[Desk trauma]

It's in a small countries interests to get nuclear capability to make them selves invasion proof.

It's in our species interests to jam the nuclear genie as far back into the bottle as possible.

 

[Desk trauma]

But I am not in favor of nuclear proliferation, because I want us to have an edge, and I want them to be hard for terrorists who have no particular loyalty to a given government to obtain.

This is my greatest worry with the ever growing number of nuclear powers. The more bombs their are the more fissile material there is to secure in more places with lower levels of security. Not that the US has a great track record on that point, if you're looking to feel even less secure with nuclear weapons I recommend Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.

 

[RDKirk]

It's in a small countries interests to get nuclear capability to make them selves invasion proof.

Particularly as long as the US is overtly threatening them.

 

[RDKirk]

Hi everyone,
While I'm a fan of nuclear power, I've never been a fan of nuclear bombs. I was a teenager in the 1980's and the Cold War gave me terrible nightmares of it suddenly going very, very 'hot'. However, this essay has made me rethink my stance. What do others think?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...pons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2c9d5188522f

Well, read the Wikipedia article on EXERCISE ABLE ARCHER 83. There are also a couple of YouTube videos.

They are all fairly accurate, except that none of them convey the four days of terror we experienced in the underground command post of the Strategic Air Command. For four days, we were scared to death, because while we hoped the diplomats were calming the situation, we were preparing for nuclear war as furiously as we could in case diplomatic efforts failed. I was briefing the generals daily, and they all wore grim faces the color of concrete.

 

[JackRT]

As a student of military history, I am of two minds about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am appalled at the terrible loss of life both at the time and since then due to radiation effects. The total I believe may be several hundred thousand.

On the other hand, the invasion of the Japanese main islands was scheduled for the spring of 1946. Military planners were already well aware that the Japanese defense would be desperate and deadly. The official Japanese slogan of the day was "90 million die together”. The Allied planners were preparing for 6 million casualties in the invasion. It was estimated that 2 million of those would be deaths.

It must have been a heart wrenching decision for Truman to have to make. Remember that he had available only those two bombs. Another six would be available in 1946. He may very well have made the right decision based on the lesser of two evils proposition.

What Truman did not know, and is still little known today, is that the Japanese nuclear program was well advanced and was not years behind but only a few weeks behind. Their main research and development facility was located in what is now North Korea at a location known as Project Z. There is evidence that the Japanese actually conducted a successful nuclear test in the Sea of Japan off the coast of North Korea on the day before the Emperor intervened and forced the Japanese surrender.

Interestingly enough, Project Z fell into the hands of the Russian occupiers of North Korea and Russia was a nuclear power within a few short years.

 

[Nithavela]

Hi everyone,
While I'm a fan of nuclear power, I've never been a fan of nuclear bombs. I was a teenager in the 1980's and the Cold War gave me terrible nightmares of it suddenly going very, very 'hot'. However, this essay has made me rethink my stance. What do others think?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...pons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2c9d5188522f

France didn't lack deterrence, they had a strong army, they just deployed them at the wrong place and got wiped out.

The farmer from the movie had no means of deterrence, even if he had an attic full of weapons and a tank behind his barn, he would have allowed Landa in his home because he has no means to stand up to a squad of highly trained german soldiers. Also, had the farmer owned all this deterrence, the Nazis wouldn't have come to his place with a squad and a polite investigator, they would have just bombed him or shelled him with artillery.

The whole article lacks solid logic because it assumes that nuclear weapons are only used for defense and never for attack.

 

[Occams Barber]

Hi everyone,
While I'm a fan of nuclear power, I've never been a fan of nuclear bombs. I was a teenager in the 1980's and the Cold War gave me terrible nightmares of it suddenly going very, very 'hot'. However, this essay has made me rethink my stance. What do others think?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...pons-they-need-for-self-defense/#2c9d5188522f

I admit to being hung up on this one. The article makes sense but so does the risk of proliferation putting nuclear weapons into the hands of a madman.

I think there is an all or nothing argument, i.e. we all have them or no one does. I don't see how we can justify some having and some not. Today's good guy could be tomorrow's evil villain and 'good guy' is in the eye of the beholder. Besides - whose going to give up their weapons?

In practical terms I suspect that proliferation has gone too far to be stopped. Given the current spread of nuclear weapons, how can you argue that I can't have them?

More to the point - how can you stop me?
OB

 

[Nithavela]

I admit to being hung up on this one. The article makes sense but so does the risk of proliferation putting nuclear weapons into the hands of a madman.

I think there is an all or nothing argument, i.e. we all have them or no one does. I don't see how we can justify some having and some not. Today's good guy could be tomorrow's evil villain and 'good guy' is in the eye of the beholder. Besides - whose going to give up their weapons?

In practical terms I suspect that proliferation has gone too far to be stopped. Given the current spread of nuclear weapons, how can you argue that I can't have them?

More to the point - how can you stop me?
OB

At the current rate of technological progression, in 100 years anyone halfway intelligent can make a nuke in their garage with stuff available in the supermarket.

 

[narrowgateevangelist]

In my opinion, nuclear weapons are a Boogeyman. Political as well as media portraits of the technology. Have elevated it in the minds of some, as a mystic nefarious technology. If exposed to it, you'll grow three legs. A radioactive spider will grant you super powers. On and on with the propaganda.

Thermobaric bombs can deliver similar results to a metropolis. Yet legions of hippies aren't marching down the street to stop the manufacture of them. Thermobaric bombs have no international boards counting how many are being produced.

From my perspective, it's all a dog and pony show. To extract more taxes from national populations. I'm pretty sure Iran uses development of them to tax Iranians more. Same goes for North Korea.

When tyrannical regimes need more money. They talk to a western leader, take pictures. Then promise, they'll stop dabbling in the 'dark mysteries of nuclear technology'. Then western tax money goes directly to the tyrannical regime. It's quite ridiculous.

 

[eclipsenow]

It's in a small countries interests to get nuclear capability to make them selves invasion proof.

It's in our species interests to jam the nuclear genie as far back into the bottle as possible.

More people died in the first month of WW1 to (now) century old machine gun designs and rifles than did in the first year of WW2. It still killed 17 million. How many million lives have nukes saved by us not now being at war with North Korea, or someone else with Pakistan? I totally agree with the fear. I've seen Sydney, Australia nuked many times in my nightmares. One nuclear exchange can ruin your whole day. But so can a submachine gun, a mustard gas shell or even some barbed wire.

 

[theQuincunx5]

It's going to end up being like guns in the US. Just statistically if MORE people have them (for whatever virtuous reason) the higher the likelihood that someone (or some particularly nasty group) will get ahold of one (or at least some of the fun stuff that goes into one) and do some real, lasting damage without care for some longer term gameplan.

The genie's out of the bottle, sure, but it doesn't mean we have to give in to wholesale proliferation just to maintain some sort of M.A.D. scenario.