Nuclear weapons

[Strathos]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

 

[Tolworth John]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

How much trust do you have that Iran or North Korea would not resort to blackmail if no one in the west had nuclear weapons?

It is the ' mad ' equation again.

 

[Occams Barber]

How much trust do you have that Iran or North Korea would not resort to blackmail if no one in the west had nuclear weapons?

It is the ' mad ' equation again.

Following on from the Trump era, it is reasonable to ask how much confidence should we place in the US?

From the outside we appear to be dealing with a government which may take on an extreme right wing complexion at the next election.

OB

 

[ironbjorn]

They should have never been invented and might possibly be a plague on humanity for the rest of our existence. Right now they're basically just a warranty or insurance: you won't use yours because we'll use ours, therefore they don't get used. And I guess that's a good thing. The possibility of an Iranian or North Korean psychopath going nuts with them wouldn't be shocking at all though. Scary stuff.

 

[Mark Corbett]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

I served in the US Navy for 5 years on submarines that were capable of carrying nuclear weapons (this was 30 years ago). That doesn't make me an expert on this topic at all, but perhaps I've thought about it a bit more than most have. Here are a few quick thoughts:

1. If I was given a magic button that could get rid of all nuclear weapons in the world and also get rid of the ability to make new ones and I was told I alone had to decide whether or not to push the button, I think I would almost certainly push it. But I thank God I'm not in that position, as I lack the wisdom and foreknowledge to make such a decision well.

2. We cannot now change the fact that nuclear weapons exist, nor that more can be made, nor that some nations possess these weapons that are evil nations (in terms of their governments actions, not in terms of their people being any more evil than other nations).

3. The US is far from a perfect nation, but in terms of freedoms for people and in terms of checks and balances on government power, we are, I think, one of the better nations in the world. I thank God that our military is probably the strongest military in the world.

4. I cannot see any better option than the US and our allies maintaining a strong nuclear force in order to deter nations like North Korea, China, and Russia from using nuclear weapons. The strategy of deterrence has been 100% successful for about 70 years now. For over 70 years, not a single nuclear weapon has been used in war. I wish there was a better option than deterrence through the maintenance of a strong nuclear arsenal and strong military, but I just don't see one.

5. The biggest risk I see is not that some other nation will gain a more powerful military and risk nuclear war (that is a real risk, but not the biggest one). The biggest risk is that the US will slide away from being a nation with the relatively strong moral foundation (through a lot of gospel light and Christian influence) necessary to maintain freedoms and effective checks and balances on government. If that happens, we might either let our guard down so that other nations feel free to risk using nukes, or we might even misuse them ourselves.

6. The US could tilt away from our relative goodness through either a radical right wing or left wing government. At this point, I feel like the threat from the left side is far greater.

7. What we need most is a change in the spiritual climate, a turning of the tide (what some call revival) where more and more people become more and more like Jesus. This would involve many people being born again, and many Christians becoming more devoted to Jesus and the gospel, and many people getting free from besetting sins, and an increase in the righteous fear of God throughout the land.

Those are my thoughts. May God help us.

 

[Strathos]

I served in the US Navy for 5 years on submarines that were capable of carrying nuclear weapons (this was 30 years ago). That doesn't make me an expert on this topic at all, but perhaps I've thought about it a bit more than most have. Here are a few quick thoughts:

1. If I was given a magic button that could get rid of all nuclear weapons in the world and also get rid of the ability to make new ones and I was told I alone had to decide whether or not to push the button, I think I would almost certainly push it. But I thank God I'm not in that position, as I lack the wisdom and foreknowledge to make such a decision well.

2. We cannot now change the fact that nuclear weapons exist, nor that more can be made, nor that some nations possess these weapons that are evil nations (in terms of their governments actions, not in terms of their people being any more evil than other nations).

3. The US is far from a perfect nation, but in terms of freedoms for people and in terms of checks and balances on government power, we are, I think, one of the better nations in the world. I thank God that our military is probably the strongest military in the world.

4. I cannot see any better option than the US and our allies maintaining a strong nuclear force in order to deter nations like North Korea, China, and Russia from using nuclear weapons. The strategy of deterrence has been 100% successful for about 70 years now. For over 70 years, not a single nuclear weapon has been used in war. I wish there was a better option than deterrence through the maintenance of a strong nuclear arsenal and strong military, but I just don't see one.

5. The biggest risk I see is not that some other nation will gain a more powerful military and risk nuclear war (that is a real risk, but not the biggest one). The biggest risk is that the US will slide away from being a nation with the relatively strong moral foundation (through a lot of gospel light and Christian influence) necessary to maintain freedoms and effective checks and balances on government. If that happens, we might either let our guard down so that other nations feel free to risk using nukes, or we might even misuse them ourselves.

6. The US could tilt away from our relative goodness through either a radical right wing or left wing government. At this point, I feel like the threat from the left side is far greater.

7. What we need most is a change in the spiritual climate, a turning of the tide (what some call revival) where more and more people become more and more like Jesus. This would involve many people being born again, and many Christians becoming more devoted to Jesus and the gospel, and many people getting free from besetting sins, and an increase in the righteous fear of God throughout the land.

Those are my thoughts. May God help us.

I'd probably agree with everything you said except for the highlighted part, considering that mainstream 'left-wing' politicians and policies in the US (i.e. the Biden administration) would be considered right-wing or centrist by the standards of many other developed nations, such as Canada and most of Europe.

 

[o_mlly]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

Do you remember the neutron bomb? The term “neutron bomb” first appeared in 1959 in US News & World Report, which called it a “death ray” that would kill man with streams of poisonous radiation, while leaving machines and buildings undamaged.

Well, the thing actually was a low yield tactical atomic bomb with limited blast range and extended radiation range. Property within the blast range would take damage but, post-blast, no radioactive fallout occurred. The attacked area would be radiation free within hours. A good weapon to have especially if the battlefield is on your own turf. The things exists and are in arsenals around the world.

A better weapon for mass killing w/o mass destruction maybe ... COVID-XX. Assuming, of course, you also have the vaccines safely hidden away in a vault.

 

[Thigbee]

I can only imagine what the world would be like today if Truman hadn't dropped those two bombs on Japan back in '45 and put an end to WWII.

I don't like nuclear weapons, wish we didn't have them, but even more I wish we didn't need them. Problem is, as in just about everything in life, just because we won't own a weapon doesn't mean someone else won't either - which is pretty much why we must ourselves.

And just because we hold a certain worldview, believe in what we do, and think the way we think - doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well.

 

[Mark Corbett]

I'd probably agree with everything you said except for the highlighted part, considering that mainstream 'left-wing' politicians and policies in the US (i.e. the Biden administration) would be considered right-wing or centrist by the standards of many other developed nations, such as Canada and most of Europe.

It sounds like we agree on a lot more (and on more important things) than what we disagree about. The part about needing a spiritual turning of the tide is the most important part for me.

Concerning the left and the right in the US, you may be correct that the Biden administration is right/centrist compared to some governments in places like Canada and Europe. However, the US government and our society as a whole have been moving at a fairly steady clip to the left. Consider this: Obama was considered by many to be the most liberal President (at least in our lifetimes) when he was elected in 2008. Yet, at that time he seemed to be against gay marriage (although he sent mixed signals). Biden is now considerably more liberal in a number of ways than Obama was. And the base of the Democratic party includes a large block (and it is the loudest block) that is considerably more liberal than Biden, in fact it is socialist. This causes me concern. If the direction we are going in continues, we will end up being socialist to the point that freedoms and checks and balances could be seriously eroded.

 

[o_mlly]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

In the 15th century the question would have been:
"What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining arsenals of the murderous English longbow in this day and age?"

And then black powder weapons were invented. The question became moot.

 

[Mark Corbett]

In the 15th century the question would have been:
"What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining arsenals of the murderous English longbow in this day and age?"

And then black powder weapons were invented. The question became moot.

I pray that no weapon ever is so deadly that it makes nukes moot. But as you mentioned in a different comment, there is a possibility that biological weapons could. The possibility that COVID came from a lab leak reminds us of this.

 

[Thigbee]

I served in the US Navy for 5 years on submarines that were capable of carrying nuclear weapons (this was 30 years ago).

Fore or aft?

 

[Ken-1122]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

If 1 nuclear bomb has the same explosive power of 1000 conventional bombs, would it make a difference if a country got rid of all of their nuclear bombs, but replaced each of them with 1000 conventional bombs and proclaimed themselves nuclear disarmed?

 

[Mark Corbett]

Fore or aft?

I was a junior office, so I served both fore and aft in terms of where I stood watch. In terms of my division responsibilities, I served in the engineering department, mostly aft, but for a short time with the Auxiliary Division.

 

[Mark Corbett]

If 1 nuclear bomb has the same explosive power of 1000 conventional bombs, would it make a difference if a country got rid of all of their nuclear bombs, but replaced each of them with 1000 conventional bombs and proclaimed themselves nuclear disarmed?

A typical modern nuclear warhead has an explosive strength of between 100 and 400 kTons of TNT. That is 100,000 to 400,000 tons of TNT. A conventional bomb that has the explosive power of just 1 ton of TNT is pretty large. So a nuke is not roughly equivalent to 1000 conventional bombs, but to 100,000 conventional bombs. To be used against an enemy all 100,000 of those conventional bombs would have to be delivered by rockets or bombers, and that is not realistic. So, no, you cannot realistically replace nukes with an equivalent conventional arsenal. It was a good question though.

 

[Thigbee]

I was a junior office, so I served both fore and aft in terms of where I stood watch. In terms of my division responsibilities, I served in the engineering department, mostly aft, but for a short time with the Auxiliary Division.

Nuke here. Sturgeon class, which probably dates me. Few others around here as well.
Thank you for your service.

 

[Thigbee]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

I always wondered why Peter was carrying a sword in the garden.

The issue imho isn't the stocking and maintaining of weapons arsenals. It really isn't a nuclear issue either, which is just a type of weapon.

The issue is - and always has been - your enemy, or enemies. What you stock and maintain is necessarily a function of what your enemy is doing by way of threatening you.

And of course, a biblical analogy of the principle can be found Ephesians 6:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having belted your waist with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having strapped on your feet the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

We have enemies. We need to protect ourselves against their schemes. Our protection needs to be as strong as, or stronger than their weapons.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What are the moral arguments against and for countries building and maintaining nuclear arsenals in this day and age? Is disarmament feasible, or even desirable?

It's too late, the cat is out of the bag. It is the government's only job to protect the rights of its citizens. So long as there are countries in the world that do not recognize the individual rights of their own citizens and initiate force against them and threaten other countries, then it would be immoral for a government to not maintain a nuclear arsenal and to try to develop more powerful and sophisticated weapons as well to stay ahead of these countries. And it would be moral to attack a country like Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Nuke here. Sturgeon class, which probably dates me. Few others around here as well.
Thank you for your service.

As a midshipmen, I did a summer cruise on the USS Whale! So I'm dated, too. And thank you for your service as well. I thank God for those who continue to serve in the "silent service." Few will ever understand the hard work they do and the vigil they keep which contributes to the safety of our nation and the freedom of the seas.

 

[Ken-1122]

A typical modern nuclear warhead has an explosive strength of between 100 and 400 kTons of TNT. That is 100,000 to 400,000 tons of TNT. A conventional bomb that has the explosive power of just 1 ton of TNT is pretty large. So a nuke is not roughly equivalent to 1000 conventional bombs, but to 100,000 conventional bombs. To be used against an enemy all 100,000 of those conventional bombs would have to be delivered by rockets or bombers, and that is not realistic. So, no, you cannot realistically replace nukes with an equivalent conventional arsenal. It was a good question though.

So why is using bombers to deliver 100,000 conventional bombs to a target unrealistic?