Nuclear weapons

[Aryeh Jay]

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

How many conventional 1000 pound bombs are in the US arsenal and how many bombers are there to carry them to the one target? How many conventional bombs would be needed to replace the thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons?

 

[Ken-1122]

How many conventional 1000 pound bombs are in the US arsenal and how many bombers are there to carry them to the one target?

I don’t know; bombs aren't only delivered by planes ya know! And not all conventional bombs are 1000 pound bombs; the “Daisy cutter” for example is a 15,000 pound bomb.

How many conventional bombs would be needed to replace the thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons?

I don’t know how many conventional bombs would be needed to replace the thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons, but whatever the number, I’m sure they can be produced. If they were produced and replaced the entire nuclear arsenal, what would be accomplished by this?

 

[Tolworth John]

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

Basic historical view shows that extreme political parties of both left and right have launched attacks on either the west or those who are the west's allies.

The west isn't perfect, but it is far more accountable then any of the countries the west is keeping an armed watch upon.

Ultimately the only domination wanted by the west is economic.

 

[Sketcher]

The US needs to maintain its nuclear arsenal to deter other nations from using nuclear weapons against us and our allies. Everyone must dread the consequences upon them for giving a nuclear first strike.

 

[pc_76]

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 agree with point 5.

How do you believe 7 could be even possible?

 

[pc_76]

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.

That doesn't necessarily make the positions of Canada and Europe more right or moral.

 

[Ray Glenn]

The use of the bombs against Japan was an absolute necessity. Japan was not entertaining surrender. Both target cities were military staging areas being prepared for repelling a US expected invasion. Most reading this board now would not have existed due to the expected loss of life in a conventional land invasion.

Having lived in Japan twice, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki want the world to remember, but realize the loss of life otherwise would have reached magnitudes we cannot imagine.

The largest concern should be the decline of military spending that would place our conventional force into a position where nukes would be the only option in saving thousands of US lives.

 

[Strathos]

That doesn't necessarily make the positions of Canada and Europe more right or moral.

I didn't say that it did.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There is no incentive for any major power to give up their nuclear arsenal as long as another rival major power has one. Neither side can trust the other to disarm thus the need to build up stockpiles.

I could argue that there are certain nations which could be given nukes to ensure their security. Taiwan for instance. If Taiwan had a hundred nukes over night would China dare invade to take over given the potential risk? You could say the same of the Ukraine if they still had their nukes. Would Russia have annexed Crimea if they had nukes? Ideally we would have permanent peace and stalemate world wide because the risks of ever using nukes indiscriminately is too great.

 

[98cwitr]

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?

One word: Deterrence

The argument of "mutually assured destruction" is a viable one that strikes at the heart of the entire principle of "cause and effect"

 

[Zoii]

There's the case that those who own nuclear weapons have/are immoral in the extreme with the USA being the most immoral, as it is the only nation to explode a nuclear weapon over civilian populations... Twice. Furthermore they plus France have conducted nuclear tests and in the process destroyed a vast environment in the Pacific. Let alone exposing islander populations to nuclear fall out. England has conducted open air tests in Australia, Russia and China as well but at least in their own backyard.

So while some have pointed at Iran and other smaller nations, they have not been the ones to historically acted appallingly with regards to nuclear weapons

 

[Ken-1122]

There's the case that those who own nuclear weapons have/are immoral in the extreme with the USA being the most immoral, as it is the only nation to explode a nuclear weapon over civilian populations... Twice.

The US did drop atomic bombs, but they were on cities considered military targets. How was using Atomic bombs on those cities considered worse than the conventional bombs used on Tokyo (also a military target) where far more people were killed?

 

[Strathos]

Is there any alternative to using nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power? Short of inventing a new technology that makes them obsolete (which would probably end up being even more dangerous).

 

[Zoii]

The US did drop atomic bombs, but they were on cities considered military targets. How was using Atomic bombs on those cities considered worse than the conventional bombs used on Tokyo (also a military target) where far more people were killed?

You seriously telling everyone that conventional weapons are worse than nuclear. That's the most bizarre thing I've heard,. Certainly not based on fact.

 

[Ken-1122]

You seriously telling everyone that conventional weapons are worse than nuclear. That's the most bizarre thing I've heard,. Certainly not based on fact.

I never made such a claim. I simply asked; why is one considered worse than the other. Care to answer that question?

 

[Desk trauma]

Is there any alternative to using nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power?

I don't see how now that the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Strathos]

I don't see how now that the genie is out of the bottle.

Could some new technology be developed that would make nuclear attacks no longer a significant threat?

 

[Ray Glenn]

The continual fire bombing of Tokyo was worse. Millions lives were saved when those nuclear bombs were dropped.

obviously short on actual historical knowledge, you intentionally ignored the fact that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military staging ares for the repelling of the coming Allied invasion.

 

[pc_76]

Could some new technology be developed that would make nuclear attacks no longer a significant threat?

Possibly the development of nuclear fusion?

 

[Desk trauma]

Could some new technology be developed that would make nuclear attacks no longer a significant threat?

If some nation were able to create a a flawless missile defense system that could work as a neutralizing factor but to a nuclear threat but that would then set them up as a unipolar power as they would be invulnerable to others weapons while still in possession of their own.