Nuclear Weapons: A Force for Good?

[punkbass2000]

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice in a military theatre. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed between 200,000 and 300,000 people, counting the affects of radiation sickness and so on. This number pales into insignificance when one considers the number of casualties inflicted by conventional bombings, by machineguns, by rifles, even by swords and spears.

Furthermore, consider the role of nuclear weaponry over the last 60 or so years. It has never been used again. Its presence has acted a the ultimate deterent, making the thought of war to abhorrent to really contemplate. Without 'The Bomb' it's hard to see what would have prevented a war between the two great superpowers of the last fifty years. A war which would undoubtedly have seen the USSR occupying Europe. Such a war would easily have equalled (and perhaps surpassed) the death count in either world war. The threat of mutually assured destruction made such a situation unthinkable.

This is not the only war nuclear weapons may have stopped. The threat of nuclear retaliation may have discouraged further invasions of Israel. Perhaps they stopped a real escalation of the Kashmir Issue. Notably, after India developed nuclear capabilities the frequence of large official 'incidents' dropped dramatically.

Thus, the question I'd like to pose is this: Between 1945 and the present day, have nuclear weapons been a net force for good? And If you were able, would you permanently prevent the development of nuclear weapons from 1945 onwards?

I do think they have been a force for good, but then I think everything is a force for good so that's not saying much.

 

[lovett]

I'd like to see the substance of that objective evaluation please.

Well, project what would have happened without the deterent affect of nuclear weapons, and compare it with the real damage said weapons have inflicted. It shouldn't be that hard. As some have pointed out (yourself included) we were *this* close to war with nuclear weapons. That makes war without nuclear weapons a pretty sure thing. Compare the casualties inevitable in a Soviet occupation of Europe with those that historical use of nuclear weapons have caused.

I do think they have been a force for good, but then I think everything is a force for good so that's not saying much.

Interesting. Care to explain?

 

[Ecofarm]

Compare the casualties inevitable in a Soviet occupation of Europe with those that historical use of nuclear weapons have caused.

Who cares about casualities, think ecologically.

Interesting. Care to explain?

It's called a positive attitude.

 

[brennan]

Well, project what would have happened without the deterent affect of nuclear weapons, and compare it with the real damage said weapons have inflicted. It shouldn't be that hard. As some have pointed out (yourself included) we were *this* close to war with nuclear weapons. That makes war without nuclear weapons a pretty sure thing. Compare the casualties inevitable in a Soviet occupation of Europe with those that historical use of nuclear weapons have caused.

You're totally ignoring the possibility of armageddon.

Let's imagine that 20 countries are in a nuclear standoff, in pairs. The first pair engage in the lunatic MAD race we went through and get away intact in the end. You are saying, in a nutshell, that this means this is the correct thing for the other 9 pairs to do but are completely ignoring the fact that the first pair may just have got lucky and the rest will be wiped off the face of the planet.

Dumb.

 

[lovett]

You're totally ignoring the possibility of armageddon.

Let's imagine that 20 countries are in a nuclear standoff, in pairs. The first pair engage in the lunatic MAD race we went through and get away intact in the end. You are saying, in a nutshell, that this means this is the correct thing for the other 9 pairs to do but are completely ignoring the fact that the first pair may just have got lucky and the rest will be wiped off the face of the planet.

Dumb.

No, No im not. My original question was whether nuclear weapons have had a net positive affect in the 1945-present day period. For this, the fact that nuclear armageddon could have occured is only useful in illustrating that it did not, in fact, occur.

A subsidiary question was :

"If you had the power, would you have permanently prevented the development of nuclear weapons post 1944?
"

For that, consider weighing the possibility of future nuclear war (I.e, post 2008) against the probability of Soviet occupation of Europe, third world war, and a few other conflicts aside. Feel free to do so.

It's called a positive attitude.

With that kind of thinking, the next things that's going to happen is you calling Iran a force for good!

 

[red_elk]

Without 'The Bomb' it's hard to see what would have prevented a war between the two great superpowers of the last fifty years. A war which would undoubtedly have seen the USSR occupying Europe. Such a war would easily have equalled (and perhaps surpassed) the death count in either world war. The threat of mutually assured destruction made such a situation unthinkable.

That's true. The good thing is that both superpowers had "The Bomb", and war was prevented only because of this. Without USSR's bomb developed in 1949, SU could very likely have been attacked.

 

[Ecofarm]

With that kind of thinking, the next things that's going to happen is you calling Iran a force for good!

Of course. By serving as an example of government that is a total abomination to mankind, it quickens (militarizes) the advance of sectarian democracy... Good work guys, bombs en-route!

That's true. The good thing is that both superpowers had "The Bomb", and war was prevented only because of this. Without USSR's bomb developed in 1949, SU could very likely have been attacked.

I'm so glad times have changed, now we will not have to wait 50 years for regime overthrow (unless Israel waits... haha, as if).

 

[Dachs]

Nukes might become handy one day.

Yeah, always good to have one or two knocking about the house in case the neighbours get uppity...

Save the world, nuke a planet-killing asteroid. They're pretty close neighbors who I don't think would listen when we said "YOU KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!"

 

[Berzerker]

Did our "respect" for N Korea increase just a bit when they set off what may have been a bomb? Of course nukes are a force for good, I think "damn near" every nation state on the planet should have a few and we wont see many more invasions.

 

[WICKLC1]

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice in a military theatre. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed between 200,000 and 300,000 people, counting the affects of radiation sickness and so on. This number pales into insignificance when one considers the number of casualties inflicted by conventional bombings, by machineguns, by rifles, even by swords and spears.

Furthermore, consider the role of nuclear weaponry over the last 60 or so years. It has never been used again. Its presence has acted a the ultimate deterent, making the thought of war to abhorrent to really contemplate. Without 'The Bomb' it's hard to see what would have prevented a war between the two great superpowers of the last fifty years. A war which would undoubtedly have seen the USSR occupying Europe. Such a war would easily have equalled (and perhaps surpassed) the death count in either world war. The threat of mutually assured destruction made such a situation unthinkable.

This is not the only war nuclear weapons may have stopped. The threat of nuclear retaliation may have discouraged further invasions of Israel. Perhaps they stopped a real escalation of the Kashmir Issue. Notably, after India developed nuclear capabilities the frequence of large official 'incidents' dropped dramatically.

Thus, the question I'd like to pose is this: Between 1945 and the present day, have nuclear weapons been a net force for good? And If you were able, would you permanently prevent the development of nuclear weapons from 1945 onwards?

Yes, nukes have prevented a war until now, but radical islamists are not deterred by nuclear weapons because they are willing to become martyrs.

 

[Berzerker]

and the state that arms them will be obliterated

 

[WICKLC1]

and the state that arms them will be obliterated

The Iranians and Syrians, the people who are most likely to arm radical islamic terrorists, share the same ideology and are also willing to become martyrs. The Soviets never attacked because they knew that they would be destroyed as well, but our new adversaries do not fear death, which makes them more dangerous.

 

[red_elk]

The Iranians and Syrians, the people who are most likely to arm radical islamic terrorists, share the same ideology and are also willing to become martyrs. The Soviets never attacked because they knew that they would be destroyed as well, but our new adversaries do not fear death, which makes them more dangerous.

If you are talking about islam, Iranians and Syrians share the same ideology with Pakistan. They will not use this weapon as soon as they get it, as Pakistan didn't. Though it's not a reason to let them get the bomb. As for USSR, they were forced to quickly build nukes in order not to get involved to a new war.

 

[Winner]

Did our "respect" for N Korea increase just a bit when they set off what may have been a bomb? Of course nukes are a force for good, I think "damn near" every nation state on the planet should have a few and we wont see many more invasions.

Uh, you should really read Wahlstetter's "Delicate balance of Terror".

He proves that having the bomb does not promote peace. In fact, having few bombs is actually making the situation even worse. He explains, that what you really need for MAD to works is the capability to launch a SECOND strike. If you have just a primitive nuclear arsenal, which is vulnerable to the potential enemy first strike, you might be tempted to use it pre-emptively, because you're afraid that if you wait too long, you will lose it.

So no, nukes themselves do NOT make countries safer. Horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons into many countries would make the world a very dangerous place.

 

[Winner]

If you are talking about islam, Iranians and Syrians share the same ideology with Pakistan. They will not use this weapon as soon as they get it, as Pakistan didn't. Though it's not a reason to let them get the bomb. As for USSR, they were forced to quickly build nukes in order not to get involved to a new war.

Nah, the Soviets simply felt that without their own nukes they wouldn't be able to liberate the world from the "capitalist oppression". The only thing that stopped them was the fact that their nuclear arsenal had been inferior to the US until the early 1970's.

They'd be totally destroyed in any nuclear war before 1970.

 

[RedRalph]

Nah, the Soviets simply felt that without their own nukes they won't be able to liberate the world from the Capitalist oppression. The only thing that stopped them was the fact that their nuclear arsenal had been inferior to the US until the early 1970's.

They'd be totally destroyed in any nuclear war before 1970.

As would the US have been, effectively. Yes, the USSR would have been hit a lot worse, but once you are talking about all your major cities being destroyed (whihc the USSr certaintly could do to the US long before 1970), then anyhting afterwards is irrelevant, you will have ceased to exist as a country.

 

[Winner]

As would the US have been, effectively.

Uhm, no.

Yes, the USSR would have been hit a lot worse, but once you are talking about all your major cities being destroyed (whihc the USSr certaintly could do to the US long before 1970), then anyhting afterwards is irrelevant, you will have ceased to exist as a country.

You're wrong. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, USSR was totally unable to hit every major city in the US. Besides, ICBMs were not really meant to be used against cities, the most likely targets were large airforce bases, ports and submarine bases, command centers (like NORAD) etc.

The whole crisis started because the Soviets were looking for an easy way how to level the playground. USA had hundreds of intercontinental bombers and totally outnumbered the Soviets, whose strategic aviation was obsolete and numerically inferior. USA also had dozens of ICBM's, while the Soviets had just about 25 and some of them were almost useless as weapons (first generation of the Soviet ICBM's were inaccurate and very unreliable). Khruschev risked the whole thing because had he succeeded, he'd have had IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) capable of hitting the continental US, thus reducing the US nuclear superiority.

If the war had erupted in 1962, US would suffer great casualties, but it would survive as a nation, while the USSR and most of Europe would be utterly devastated.

 

[RedRalph]

you realise for the US to be utterly devestated it would have only meant about ten bombs hitting their tagets, dont you? you Dont think ten would have gotten through? At a technological disadvantage the USSR undoubtedly was, but they could have got ten bombs (probably an order of magnitude more than that) through. the missiles were put on cuba to increase the Soviet deterrent, not because they didnt have one at all. Are you forgetting the USSR has SLBM already by then? you think by some miracle none of those would have gotten through? How many do you think out of the entire Soviet strategic bomber force would have gotten through?

 

[RedRalph]

your secnario where the US barely gets a scratch assumes that the US rolls a 6 everytime, that nothing goes wrong, that there are no unforeseen events. ten bombs would have done it, and ten bombs would have gotten through (probably many more). Think about it. Washington, NY, LA, Chicago, Cheyenne, Philedelphia, Miami and SF get destroyed. you really think that wouldnt mean the end of the US?

 

[red_elk]

Nah, the Soviets simply felt that without their own nukes they wouldn't be able to liberate the world from the "capitalist oppression". The only thing that stopped them was the fact that their nuclear arsenal had been inferior to the US until the early 1970's.

They'd be totally destroyed in any nuclear war before 1970.

Really?
Tell me, how USSR could use nukes to liberate world from "capitalist oppression"? Comparing to USA, USSR was totally in defensive position since 1945, there wasn't any possibility to attack them and achieve any success. And how could half-devastated country had such plans of "liberating" world from anything... I don't know. As I remember, in Soviet schools we weren't taught that we must liberate somebody, but that somebody wants to "liberate" us from communism, and will not hesitate to use any methods for that, as in Vietnam.