Why does the US need nuclear weapons?

[platzapS]

Is there any logical reason that the United States continues to maintain its nuclear arsenal, and fund research into new nuclear weapons systems?

Research for new weapons and maintenence of existing weapons costs millions upon millions in public money, along with the brain power of some of our greatest scientists.

Our gigantic arsenal is detrimental in our foriegn policy. How can we ask other states to halt nuclear weapon programs when we maintain one? Wouldn't it be a better example to the world if we dismantled our own weapons and then demanded they scrap theirs?

I cannot imagine a remotely plausible scenario where the use of nuclear weapons would be the best course of action, morally and strategically.

 

[Maxwell511]

Is there any logical reason that the United States continues to maintain its nuclear arsenal, and fund research into new nuclear weapons systems?

Research for new weapons and maintenence of existing weapons costs millions upon millions in public money, along with the brain power of some of our greatest scientists.

Our gigantic arsenal is detrimental in our foriegn policy. How can we ask other states to halt nuclear weapon programs when we maintain one? Wouldn't it be a better example to the world if we dismantled our own weapons and then demanded they scrap theirs?

I cannot imagine a remotely plausible scenario where the use of nuclear weapons would be the best course of action, morally and strategically.

The reason that the US needs it's nuclear weapons is the same reason that others try and develop them. I don't think they can give them up.

 

[KenH]

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and we must maintain a level of a nuclear arsenal for self defense to deter another nation from using nuclear weapons against us.

The U.S. giving up nuclear weapons will not stop other nations from trying to acquire them.

We can't go back to a time of no nuclear weapons. That's just the reality.

 

[azmurath]

I think people are way into this nuclear weapon business. I found one person who actually believed one bomb would destroy the entire United States. They are not as powerful as people make them out to be.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

We need them for deterrance and need to admit that this is old technology that others will inevitably get. The goal and hope is that if everyone has them, no one will use them because of the assured response.

 

[platzapS]

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and we must maintain a level of a nuclear arsenal for self defense to deter another nation from using nuclear weapons against us.

The U.S. giving up nuclear weapons will not stop other nations from trying to acquire them.

We can't go back to a time of no nuclear weapons. That's just the reality.

I don't believe the deterrence argument--it's based on the idea that the US would actually use its weapons. If my country used nuclear weapons today, it would be destroyed. Not militarily, but economically and in world standing. It would be a barbarous and morally indefensible act.

Even disregarding my hippie rant, what could we attack with a Bomb that we couldn't more effectively and efficiently attack with conventional weapons?

 

[platzapS]

We need them for deterrance and need to admit that this is old technology that others will inevitably get. The goal and hope is that if everyone has them, no one will use them because of the assured response.

Yes, it is fairly old, but that doesn't mitigate its destructiveness and radioactive legacy of suffering that would haunt the target site for decades after any attack. I also find your scenario of mutually assured destruction absurd. Why should we let every country in the world get the most powerful weapon ever created, all on hair-trigger alert aimed at their respective enemies, looming over global politics in a world of fear?

It would be infinitely better to scorn nations with nuclear weapons programs, dismantle our own programs, and work toward a nuke-free world. In the long run, it would also be the least expensive.

The reason that the US needs it's nuclear weapons is the same reason that others try and develop them. I don't think they can give them up.

What reason is this?

 

[JamesD]

It would be infinitely better to scorn nations with nuclear weapons programs, dismantle our own programs, and work toward a nuke-free world. In the long run, it would also be the least expensive.


What reason is this?

That would be great, but unfortunately it is impossible. Nukes are kept today pretty much only to keep others from performing nuclear blackmail against us. It's also quite difficult to scorn a nation when they can blackmail you with nuclear weapons.

A nuke free world would also not solve our problems. The weapons themselves do not cause instability, it is the knowledge of how to make them, and that would be impossible get rid of. Even if we got rid of all nukes, the world could nuclearly rearm itself in a couple of years if it wanted to.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

If we eliminate our stockpile and even every nuke in the world, then the technology doesn't go away. When someone decides to build one they hold it over our heads and blackmail us. Or we invade them when they start to build one. It is overly naive to imagine a world without nukes.

 

[Balko]

If we also beat a country in a war, they could launch nuke at us as last ditch. Seeing as how we don't have a perfect missile defence, and no nukes(as of a nuke free america scenario), we can't do anything since we've already beat them, and while a nuke for nuke is accepted in the world, a killing civilians with conventional weaponry is considered far more cruel, than the ol' nuke for nuke.

And seeing as we do have nukes, now then they wouldn't lauch it in the first place. Saves tons of lives.

I think people are way into this nuclear weapon business. I found one person who actually believed one bomb would destroy the entire United States. They are not as powerful as people make them out to be.

1 death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statisic
-Stalin

A: nuke can destroy a large city, millions of people. I wouldn't "take a nuke" and sacrifice 10 million people just to prove I can keep going. I'd scare them into not using nukes, because damage like that is NOT negligible.

 

[LogicChristian]

Is there any logical reason that the United States continues to maintain its nuclear arsenal, and fund research into new nuclear weapons systems?

The US has gotten rid of the vast majority of its weapons, is continuing to get rid of more, and is only designing new ones to replace ones that are out of date. Furthermore, the average yield of nuclear weapons has declined by a factor of about 10 since the 60s and 70s.

Research for new weapons and maintenence of existing weapons costs millions upon millions in public money, along with the brain power of some of our greatest scientists.

Nuclear weapons are comparably cheap compared to our conventional weapons expenditures, and the scientists that actively work on designing nuclear weapons is in the dozens or hundreds, not a significant chunk of our research base.

Our gigantic arsenal is detrimental in our foriegn policy. How can we ask other states to halt nuclear weapon programs when we maintain one? Wouldn't it be a better example to the world if we dismantled our own weapons and then demanded they scrap theirs?

But what happens when an unstable regime obtains nuclear weapons and you have none?

I cannot imagine a remotely plausible scenario where the use of nuclear weapons would be the best course of action, morally and strategically.

How about 1945? We could have kept firebombing Japanese cities, raids that killed hundreds of thousands at a time. We could have killed millions in an invasion (look up the casualty projections for Operations Olympic and Coronet,) or we could have killed hundreds of thousands or millions by subjecting the island to a naval blockade. In comparison, using two atomic bombs that killed less than 200,000 people was a way to end the war with less bloodshed than the alternatives.

 

[TheReasoner]

The US has gotten rid of the vast majority of its weapons, is continuing to get rid of more, and is only designing new ones to replace ones that are out of date. Furthermore, the average yield of nuclear weapons has declined by a factor of about 10 since the 60s and 70s.

Which is good. But not good enough.

Nuclear weapons are comparably cheap compared to our conventional weapons expenditures, and the scientists that actively work on designing nuclear weapons is in the dozens or hundreds, not a significant chunk of our research base.

Few argue you should keep your arms spending. It has little use. Build up your nation with investments that pay off. Education. Healthcare. Stuff like that. That is what keeps a nation going. Not it's arms.

But what happens when an unstable regime obtains nuclear weapons and you have none?

What happens if you become an unstable regime?
This is not unthinkable. IMO, nuclear weapons should only be held by a multinational organ requiring launch clearance from a majority of the nations in this organ before use. That would be a good safeguard for situations like the aforementioned de-stabilization of a nation already owning nukes.

How about 1945? We could have kept firebombing Japanese cities, raids that killed hundreds of thousands at a time. We could have killed millions in an invasion (look up the casualty projections for Operations Olympic and Coronet,) or we could have killed hundreds of thousands or millions by subjecting the island to a naval blockade. In comparison, using two atomic bombs that killed less than 200,000 people was a way to end the war with less bloodshed than the alternatives.

Not true. The bombs could have been used on non-populated area to scare the japanese just as well as on populated area.
IMHO that should have been tried before nuking two cities causing so many deaths.

 

[LogicChristian]

Which is good. But not good enough.

And more is being done by the day. Disarmament talks still contine, and the US and Russia are continuing to whittle down their arsenals.

Few argue you should keep your arms spending. It has little use. Build up your nation with investments that pay off. Education. Healthcare. Stuff like that. That is what keeps a nation going. Not it's arms.

The US spends more money than any country in the world on health care. And when did I say the US should keep up its current level of military spending? But the fact is, one of the main reasons that the US invested so heavily in nuclear weapons after WWII is that when faced with the Soviet Army, the US, UK, and France wanted a cheaper way to protect itself and Western Europe from Russian attack.

What happens if you become an unstable regime?
This is not unthinkable. IMO, nuclear weapons should only be held by a multinational organ requiring launch clearance from a majority of the nations in this organ before use. That would be a good safeguard for situations like the aforementioned de-stabilization of a nation already owning nukes.

The US and Russia both have nuclear safeguards in place to prevent their launch by a madman. One requirement of a credible nuclear deterrant is that it can be used relatively quickly in the case that a state with large numbers of them launches a surprise attack. The system you brought up completely destroys the retaliatory deterrant capability of a nuclear arsenal.

Not true. The bombs could have been used on non-populated area to scare the japanese just as well as on populated area.
IMHO that should have been tried before nuking two cities causing so many deaths.

Would the Japanese have cared if we used them on non-populated areas? We'd been firebombing Japanese cities by the dozen and they were still holding out. What makes you think that detonating the atomic bombs in a non-populated area would have garnered any attention?

 

[TheReasoner]

And more is being done by the day. Disarmament talks still contine, and the US and Russia are continuing to whittle down their arsenals.

Thankfully!

The US spends more money than any country in the world on health care.

Yet your healthcare is curently pretty bad. And exceptionally expensive. With your system it is no wonder you spend more than any other nation on it, the system is inefficient and extremely expensive.
Which is no wonder. Your doctors resort to medication gar too quickly. Your pharmaceutical corporations have been twiddling the government around it's baby finger for years/decades resulting in extreme prices and unfair (at best) laws infringing on the rights of the sick.

And when did I say the US should keep up its current level of military spending? But the fact is, one of the main reasons that the US invested so heavily in nuclear weapons after WWII is that when faced with the Soviet Army, the US, UK, and France wanted a cheaper way to protect itself and Western Europe from Russian attack.

Oh, I never said there was no reason for nukes. I just argue that they are not the solution to the issues at hand. Especially not if owned by a single nation. I could argue they have a purpose if controlled by a multi national organ as earlier stated.

The US and Russia both have nuclear safeguards in place to prevent their launch by a madman. One requirement of a credible nuclear deterrant is that it can be used relatively quickly in the case that a state with large numbers of them launches a surprise attack. The system you brought up completely destroys the retaliatory deterrant capability of a nuclear arsenal.

Not completely. It could still be used as a deterrant. Not specifically retaliatory to the same extent. It will be harder to use nukes. As it should be.

Would the Japanese have cared if we used them on non-populated areas? We'd been firebombing Japanese cities by the dozen and they were still holding out. What makes you think that detonating the atomic bombs in a non-populated area would have garnered any attention?

Erm... Because of the damage ?!
You could have devastated an area with a powerful nuke, and it would have brought attention. It would have been worth trying. If the Japanese had not responded, THEN nuke places with significant armed forces.

The USA is guilty of many many wars. Could you justify nuking New York, Boston, LA or whatever to make the US government stop playing God around the world?
No?
Neither can I.

 

[LogicChristian]

Yet your healthcare is curently pretty bad. And exceptionally expensive. With your system it is no wonder you spend more than any other nation on it, the system is inefficient and extremely expensive.
Which is no wonder. Your doctors resort to medication gar too quickly. Your pharmaceutical corporations have been twiddling the government around it's baby finger for years/decades resulting in extreme prices and unfair (at best) laws infringing on the rights of the sick.

Yup, that's why I question your advice to simply spend more money. The US could probably be spending far less money on health care and be better off if other systemic problems in the healthcare system were addressed. But that's for another thread.

Oh, I never said there was no reason for nukes. I just argue that they are not the solution to the issues at hand. Especially not if owned by a single nation. I could argue they have a purpose if controlled by a multi national organ as earlier stated.

That organ would be useless for aforementioned reasons.

Not completely. It could still be used as a deterrant. Not specifically retaliatory to the same extent. It will be harder to use nukes. As it should be.

If the nukes are multinational, the position of the delivery systems is known by many nations, and thus subject to preemptive attack. The delay in an international body making the decision through a vote to use the weapons also allows for easy preemptive attack by destroying those nation's ability to communicate with each other. Basically, it would be a toothless, feel good nuclear deterrant.

The only way a nuclear deterrant is effective is if there is no way it can be circumvented. The idea you mentioned has fundamental vulnerabilities that would allow it to be circumvented easily by any nation with enough missiles and warheads.

Erm... Because of the damage ?!
You could have devastated an area with a powerful nuke, and it would have brought attention. It would have been worth trying. If the Japanese had not responded, THEN nuke places with significant armed forces.

The firebombing raids were quite destructive, as were Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Saipan, etc. etc. The atomic bomb was destructive enough to help end the war, but even after its detonation, there were major factions in Japan that wanted to continue the war. If the weapon were simply used in a rural area, you can bet that the war camp would have had even more leverage.

The USA is guilty of many many wars. Could you justify nuking New York, Boston, LA or whatever to make the US government stop playing God around the world?
No?
Neither can I.

The US is also responsible for having fed a great many starving children, providing a great deal of medicine to those that can't afford it, and providing hope to people in nations where there is none to be found.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yup, that's why I question your advice to simply spend more money. The US could probably be spending far less money on health care and be better off if other systemic problems in the healthcare system were addressed. But that's for another thread.

Indeed it is. It would be an interesting topic though

If the nukes are multinational, the position of the delivery systems is known by many nations, and thus subject to preemptive attack. The delay in an international body making the decision through a vote to use the weapons also allows for easy preemptive attack by destroying those nation's ability to communicate with each other. Basically, it would be a toothless, feel good nuclear deterrant.

Good point. But still, any one nation can fall to an unstable individual like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet etc.
So the question is; Should we ban nukes on the pain of world war? I.E. If a nation acquires nukes, should this nation invaded and the leaders disposed of?
It is a touchy subject, but I believe the world would be better off without such weapons

The only way a nuclear deterrant is effective is if there is no way it can be circumvented. The idea you mentioned has fundamental vulnerabilities that would allow it to be circumvented easily by any nation with enough missiles and warheads.

No deterrant will stop a man (or woman) who is sufficiently mad. IF a sufficiently crazed person was to get presidency in the USA we'd all be severely dead.

The firebombing raids were quite destructive, as were Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Saipan, etc. etc. The atomic bomb was destructive enough to help end the war, but even after its detonation, there were major factions in Japan that wanted to continue the war. If the weapon were simply used in a rural area, you can bet that the war camp would have had even more leverage.

I still think it should have been tried.
What's more, I think what you did in Japan after their capitulation was wrong. I am a history enthusiast, and when I think of all the wonderful items you burnt to break the Japanese spirit...

The US is also responsible for having fed a great many starving children, providing a great deal of medicine to those that can't afford it, and providing hope to people in nations where there is none to be found.

Yes, for which many are thankful. Including me. You guys helped us out after WW2 with the Marshall aid. A great service to the world
And you also stopped our government from starting our own nuclear programme, which it wanted to do due to the Soviet threat. Thank you for that as well!
However, this does not make up for the bad things, which are plentiful.

 

[Patzak]

The US has gotten rid of the vast majority of its weapons, is continuing to get rid of more, and is only designing new ones to replace ones that are out of date. Furthermore, the average yield of nuclear weapons has declined by a factor of about 10 since the 60s and 70s.

What's the number you're aiming for? I seem to remember it's still somewhere in the 1000s of warheads. I know it's not realistic to expect the US (or anybody else) to get rid of all the nukes, but I'd be very happy if everybody reduced their arsenals to let's say a hundred nukes. I think that would still work just as well as a deterrent (you can still kill a couple million people if you aim them at the biggest cities) while ensuring the survival of civilization in the eventuality of a nuclear war.

 

[LogicChristian]

Good point. But still, any one nation can fall to an unstable individual like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet etc.
So the question is; Should we ban nukes on the pain of world war? I.E. If a nation acquires nukes, should this nation invaded and the leaders disposed of?
It is a touchy subject, but I believe the world would be better off without such weapons

The problem is, the person with the nukes is always going to have an advantage against those who don't. Also, in modern arsenals, safeguards prevent any one person from making the nuclear decision of unsound mind. For instance, the American president after being told a nuclear attack is underway has to call the National Military Command Center I believe and give a code to prove who he really is before ordering a retaliatory strike. The CO at STRATCOM has to confirm the order is real and sound before the next procedures of the attack go forward. On nuclear submarines, launching the weapons requires the reception of the order, and both the CO and XO agreeing the order is valid. At ICBM sites, two men most undergo an interdependent checklist of activities simultaneously to allow missile launch.

No deterrant will stop a man (or woman) who is sufficiently mad. IF a sufficiently crazed person was to get presidency in the USA we'd all be severely dead.

That's pretty unlike due to the fact that if the President is obviously mentally unsound, he doesn't hold both the codes and the strike plans for himself, and he has to go through the National Military Command Center to order a strike. Safeguards are also in place at the launch level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule

I still think it should have been tried.
What's more, I think what you did in Japan after their capitulation was wrong. I am a history enthusiast, and when I think of all the wonderful items you burnt to break the Japanese spirit...

And I think we had to stop crimes like those that were occuring in Manchukuo, those that occurred with Unit 731, and events like the rape of Nanjing and the occupation of the Korean Peninsula. History is one of my majors but I am quite the fan of China, so perhaps that's why my point of view is different.

 

[LogicChristian]

What's the number you're aiming for? I seem to remember it's still somewhere in the 1000s of warheads. I know it's not realistic to expect the US (or anybody else) to get rid of all the nukes, but I'd be very happy if everybody reduced their arsenals to let's say a hundred nukes. I think that would still work just as well as a deterrent (you can still kill a couple million people if you aim them at the biggest cities) while ensuring the survival of civilization in the eventuality of a nuclear war.

That's an excellent question. The US has reduced its stockpile from about 10000 warheads in 2000. About half those warheads are right now taken out of operational service (bombs taken away from deployed USAF units, missile reentry vehicles taken off their missiles) and are awaiting destruction. The US has just taken out of service it's largest ICBM with the most warheads (the peackeeper carrying 10 warheads apiece on 50 missiles) and is in the process of reducing its last ICBM, the minuteman, from 3 warheads a piece to one (for a little over 500 missiles.) The US plans to reduce its stockpile to between 1700 and 2200 warheads by 2012, which sounds like quite a bit, but history tells us that in the next 6-8 years, there will almost certainly be a new arms control agreement to push arsenals even lower. One of the main speedbumps to disarmament between the US and Russia is that Russia lacks the facilities to disarm their weapons at the rate they need to, so the US has to do it.

I think a good model for nuclear deterrance is Britain. Since the end of the Cold War, they have reduced their nuclear arsenal to their 4 Vanguard class submarines, each carrying 16 Trident IIs (the American counterpart, the Ohio, carries 24.) Britain also reduced the number of warheads in each missile from 10 to 3, and pledged to keep only 48 weapons active on each boat (and usually only one sub is deployed at a time.) Britain now has about 150-300 nuclear warheads total, with only 48 truly operational at any one time. Nevertheless, this is a devastating enough deterrant to where no country would ever consider attacking the UK.

Conversely, the US Trident system seems to be one that the government won't cut back on or decommission any of. Though 4 of our Ohio subs were taken off the nuclear mission and shifted to cruise missile or SF carriers, most still carry 24 nuclear missiles with 8 warheads apiece. That works out to a whopping 196 warheads per submarine, or 2744 warheads for the entire force, which IMO, is way more than the US needs. Though due to treaty committments, some, if not most of those warheads will have to go soon.

 

[five]

I think I know the perfect solution: The world needs to reduce its population by like 100 or 1000 fold. Then it won't be cost effective to develop nuclear weapons because the population density won't be high enough to justify their use.