Nuclear Weapons

[Roman Soldier]

I firmly believe that the later half of the 20th century would have been much, much more bleak had nuclear weapons not been invented. We would probably still be fighting a World War II like campaign against the Soviet Union and possibly other powerful nations across the world, but mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented this.

Why do nukes have such a bad rap when they were probably the only things that kept the world so peaceful from 1945 to the present?

 

[Megachihuahua]

because they have...side affects...other than that, they're great. I think neutron bombs are better though.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

I wonder how different Islamic terrorists would act if the USA threatened to nuke Mecca? Not differently at all I think because they believe it is protected by angels.

 

[Injured Soldier]

Why do nukes have such a bad rap when they were probably the only things that kept the world so peaceful from 1945 to the present?

Well, considering the world almost did come to the brink on a number of ocassions, even with rational leaders. And the world hasn't been peaceful, over 10 million people since WWII have died through conventional war, nukes or not.

Think considering only two weak bombs have been used in real circumstances against real people, and seeing the results of that is sick enough. I guess there's also a thought deep down that people suspect the government bureaucracies don't like paying for something they don't use. So what are all these nukes for? I'm not saying you're ideas are wrong, it does need to be considered. But being human means that we never like taking the hard, heartless option. Even the Nazis went crazy after too much killing.

Incidentally, anyone have any figures on the amount of nukes dismantled since 1991? There isn't a Soviet Union any more.

 

[kurabrhm]

Nuclear Weapons - yes they were a deterrent in terms of preventing total catastrophe as a result of the Cold War rivalry between the Soviet Union and the US but look at the countries who hold Nukes nowadays. Would you consider a nuclear Pakistan to be responsible? Or even India?
The fact that India believes Pakistan harbours radical terrorists is something that's perhaps of greater concern to the world than the Bush/Blair story of terrorists getting hold of Saddam's WMD. How would a story, for instance, of Pakistan as a country more dangerous than Iraq sell to the Western media and public? The answer, not very well. By contrast, Iraq has been sold to the Western public more successfully than an anti-Pakistan campaign could ever hope to achieve. There's a sense that Pakistan is a benevolent country because it has so much poverty and that it's leaders are not seen in the same way as Middle Eastern leaders are. But the threat is perhaps higher but nonethelss muted amidst the Iraq and Israel Palestine conflict.
The Cold war may be over but cold war rivalry, as I've always argued, continues in the "third world" in the form of Pakistan Vs India. This "third world" cold war is perhaps more alarming than the original because today there's undoubtedly the terrorists who are out there to exploit weaknesses in global politics.

 

[kurabrhm]

I wonder how different Islamic terrorists would act if the USA threatened to nuke Mecca? Not differently at all I think because they believe it is protected by angels.

Who can really say? They are quite random, so pretty much anything can happen. That's the whole fear factor generated by global terrorism. It's like a virus that spreading around the globe. There's no guarantee that anyone can be 100% safe from it.

 

[Palatka44]

At one time having a bigger bomb than your adversary might have assured you peace through MAD, but now a small nuclear device is more likely the mode of attack. Many ways to smuggle in a suitcase through a terrorist, without a national finger print, to attack your enemy with. Your enemy would have no target for the megaton warhead atop those ICBMs.
A well planed attack like 9/11 but instead of training pilots for passenger jets, just have a team of terrorist carrying a suitcase into central park and/or every major city's center and then detonate. IMO, this is what the Bush administration feared and continues to be concerned about.
It is reported that after Dessert Storm, when Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the US Government was surprise at the progress of Iraq's nuclear technology. So when Saddam had kicked out the inspectors everyone assumed he had started nuclear bomb development again. The Clinton administration even expressed concerns.
Now after 9/11 we had to make sure that Saddam had not started his nuclear program. Knowing that he did not shy from using WMD's against Iran and even his own people. It was pretty much a sure bet that if he got a nuclear bomb he would not only use it on his neighbors but also against the US.
No, I don't think anyone wants to deal with many more nations with nuclear weapons.

 

[cartridge]

I firmly believe that the later half of the 20th century would have been much, much more bleak had nuclear weapons not been invented. We would probably still be fighting a World War II like campaign against the Soviet Union and possibly other powerful nations across the world, but mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented this.

Why do nukes have such a bad rap when they were probably the only things that kept the world so peaceful from 1945 to the present?

Well as one of the major factors causing the cold war was the nuclear arms race, I serously doubt that the removal of nuclear weapons would mean that the cold war would still be on.

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

Well as one of the major factors causing the cold war was the nuclear arms race, I serously doubt that the removal of nuclear weapons would mean that the cold war would still be on.

If it was not nuclear weapons, it would have been something else. Take a look at the years leading up to World War 1. Then it was a contest to see who could get the most battleships. The ended up using them in one major fleet action too. I think that there is a bit of an historical parallel there.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

Yes, the contest between Great Britain and Germany. We were building Dreadnaughts and the popular chant went "We want eight and we won't wate!"

 

[Striver]

You can look at military history as this world has changed and see (as mentioned above) that it's always been a race to have the biggest this, or the strongest that. For examples, just look at the middle ages and the knight, or WW I with the huge dreadnaughts of their time...even take a look during the cold war with the race between the soviest MiGs and the American fighter program.

Nukes are horrible, horrible weapons that hopefully will never be unleashed on this earth again. This is where the 'bad rep' comes from. Anything that can obliterate countless lives in mere seconds is horrible.

However, I do agree that they've proven themselves to be much more of a political mind weapon than an actual military weapon (although that can obviously change). The simple threat of complete destruction of every large city and more of a country is enough to scare any leader in his/her right mind. The simple thought of knowing that if you press that button, or issue that order to invade, you may never live (as a leader or even people) to see it carried out.