Nuclear Ordnance

[History_Buff]

What exactly is the point of all the nuclear weapons we have. Nobody will ever use the things, and even so, what is the point of killing every single creature on earth ten times over? thats just stupid and wasteful. The US could save tons of dollars not maintaining all those old pieces of ****.

Thoughts everyone. . .

 

[Hamlet]

Your argument was so persuasive I just joined CND.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

And what, pray tell, has this to do with history?

Off to the OT with you!

 

[amadeus]

What's cheaper, maintaining a single missile silo or having a half-million soldiers in place of each one?

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
And what, pray tell, has this to do with history?

Off to the OT with you!

Erm.... This is OT

Anyway, the problem is once it was discovered that it could be done, staunch enemies built them cos they couldn't guarantee their enemies wouldn't, thus if they didn't they'd have left themselves flatfooted.

I too wish we could get rid of them as well. Someone's going to get an itchy finger eventually, law of averages, all that.

 

[Greadius]

Deterrence. The idea of having an nuclear stockpile is to scare anyone else out of using theirs.

If we got rid of them, they would no longer deter...

And don't ask "Who does it deter against?" We have no idea, but we know there has never been a nuclear exchange, so I'm willing to say it works

 

[santo67]

Nuclear weapons are more politics than traditional warfare. It's MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. We have to have plenty of nukes, so, should anyone attack us with their nukes, they can be assured that they won't be any less dead than us. It's not so big a problem since the Soviet Union broke up or-so-they-want-us-to-think, but we have all these extra nukes lying around...

 

[Case]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Erm.... This is OT

It's only here because AoA (the mod) moved it

 

[allan2]

I like Frank Herbert's future solution to this in the "Dune" timeline--the Great Convention, which by mutual treaty of the Great Houses forbade use (but not possession) of "atomics" (nukes), use bringing down the combined wrath of all the other Great Houses. But I assume he figured such a consensus probably would arise because mankind in the intervening period had a lot of bad experiences with these things, enough to make them declared an unacceptable atrocity when used. They were saved presumably to be used on a hypothetical alien aggressor should one ever arise....

We can't "uninvent" these things, much as we may wish we could (I know *I* wish it). So we have to live with them, and hope our better nature prevails.... Well, at least until we've spread to enough other planets that our extinction won't be assured by them.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by santo67
Nuclear weapons are more politics than traditional warfare. It's MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. We have to have plenty of nukes, so, should anyone attack us with their nukes, they can be assured that they won't be any less dead than us.

MAD has not been U.S. policy since the 1960's. U.S. policy on nuclear response is limited striking of military targets to ensure the end of the world isn't the result of some cold Russian hitting the wrong button.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

They have helped keep the peace for many a year; They are the ultimate deterrent. And, as said before
1.) They can't be uninvented, and the other nasty people have them, and won't simply scrap them out of altruism. The world does not work that way.
2.) It saves on endless multitudes of conventional forces.

In the end, they are just rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects, and a great psychological impact.

 

[Padma]

Back in the '50s and '60s, everyone thought the Cold War would turn hot, and we would be lobbing nukes at each other until the earth was just a glowing cinder. We ignored our conventional forces. But then there was this thing called Korea, and Vietnam, and you know, maybe that guy sitting in the Kremlin has a reasonalbe streak, after all. So we started to reduce the number of warheads and delivery systems, usually by treaty: I'll cut mine if you'll cut yours. And recently, President Bush announced that we would unilaterally reduce our force to below 2000 active systems.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. But we are reducing our dependence on them. Still, they do serve as a deterrent. Do you really think Saddam would not have unleashed chem and bio weapons during Desert Storm if we hadn't pointed out that Baghdad would be a glowing blue pile of fused sand if he had? He was certainly willing to use them against the Iranians and the Kurds, who had no real retaliatory power.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
In the end, they are just rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects, and a great psychological impact.

Well said!

 

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
They have helped keep the peace for many a year; They are the ultimate deterrent. And, as said before
1.) They can't be uninvented, and the other nasty people have them, and won't simply scrap them out of altruism. The world does not work that way.
2.) It saves on endless multitudes of conventional forces.

In the end, they are just rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects, and a great psychological impact.

the first bit is true the cold war WOULD have been hot without nukes.
1) is completely true

2) and the l;ast bit are true as well

well said Simon

 

[History_Buff]

Now you all have great points, and I'm not agfainst all nuclear weapons. My point is just that the US oculd kill most of the world a few times over anyway, so why not just save money and reduce arsenals. And who are we detering anyway?

Russia, gone
Pakistan and India, no delivery system
Britain, Ally
Terrorists, would detonate them anyway if they could.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Case


It's only here because AoA (the mod) moved it

Oh... well... never mind.

 

[sysyphus]

It's true that they do act as a deterrent against warfare (granted there's no shortage of war in the world right now... but perhaps there would be larger wars without them)

But does everyone besides me think that no one will ever set them off? They WILL eventually be used. Hopefully later than sooner, much later.

But the point of view that the genie can't be put back in the bottle is completely valid too.

Cross yer fingers.

 

[SKILORD]

we're defending the world from...... errrrrr... aliens! yeah that's it! the US nuclear arsenal cannot be reduced because we have to protect the world from the possibility of alien invasion.

i'm just kidding..... DON'T YOU DARE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by History_Buff
Now you all have great points, and I'm not agfainst all nuclear weapons. My point is just that the US oculd kill most of the world a few times over anyway, so why not just save money and reduce arsenals. And who are we detering anyway?

Russia, gone
Pakistan and India, no delivery system
Britain, Ally
Terrorists, would detonate them anyway if they could.

I believe the answer is quite obvious: THE FRENCH!!!!!
Yes, overkill is present but unilateral disarmament is not going to happen. They are a nice insurance policy for when the aliens come, or when the glorious forces of good and light have to nuke the commies in Red China and North Korea.

 

[scorch]

hmmmm, i can't see the point of lots of nukes.

20 at the most.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Only 20? The Ohio Class SSBNs have 24 EACH onboard them, as well as gravity bombs, cruise missile warheads, ICBMs, bombers, theater nuclear weapons.
The point of deterrence in a nuclear arsenal is to have more than enough to kill the enemy, so that he will not risk attacking you as he cannot knock out your entire arsenal.