Nuclear Weapons: A Force for Good?

[Winner]

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?

I am fairly sure that the continental US (that means the US except Alaska and the Pacific island) would have been hit by no more than 60 warheads, even if the Soviets had been lucky.

Although it seems enough, it's not. You need hundreds of such weapons to destroy a country of the size of the US. Several major cities would have been destroyed or damaged, parts of the country hit badly by the fallout, but it wouldn't have been enough to totally cripple it.

On the other hand, Western Europe would have been hit by many hundreds and the USSR by thousands of warheads. "Nobody wins" scenario does not apply on this situation, because one side would have survived, despite being badly mauled, while the other would have been totally destroyed.

At a technological disadvantage the USSR undoubtedly was, but they could have got ten bombs (probably an order of magnitude more than that) through.

Most of their ICBM's would have hit their targets and very few bombers would have got through. The only wild card were the IRBM's in Cuba, but I assume the war would start with the US pre-emtive strike on Cuban missile sites (as was actually planned by the US) so not many would have survived.

the missiles were put on cuba to increase the Soviet deterrent, not because they didnt have one at all.

That's not what I said. I said that they needed the missiles on Cuba because their deterrent was a bare minimum. Plus, their ICBM's were very vulnerable and it took long before they could be launched. I bet the Soviet leaders were afraid that the US takes them out by a suprise first strike, so they wanted to have an "insurance" in form of "unsinkable nuclear submarine" named Cuba.

Are you forgetting the USSR has SLBM already by then? you think by some miracle none of those would have gotten through?

Do you actually know what kind of nuclear submarines they had in 1962? Their SLBM forces were

a) very primitive (the submarine would have had to stop, resurface and spend long time preparing the missile for launch)
b) the missiles were basically modified SCUDs with very low range (less then 1000 km)
c) the submarines were slow and noisy. Very few would have got anywhere near the US, if any.
d) contemporary Soviet submarines could not carry more than 3 missiles, thus their relevance in this scenario is next to none

How many do you think out of the entire Soviet strategic bomber force would have gotten through?

Very, very few. Soviet bomber force was really no match for the US interceptors protecting North America. Soviets knew that, that's why they later focused their efforts on the missile forces, while bombers had only supplementary role.

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?

Why should it? Nukes are not a miracle weapon, they cause terrible damage, but the damage itself is not different from what you can cause by conventional means.

USSR lost about 20+ million people in the WW2 and huge parts of the country were devastated, yet it did not collapse. Japan suffered even more, most of its industry was destroyed, the country was blockaded, major cities firebombed and destroyed, but the government maintained control until the bitter end.

Though the US would suffer horrendous casualties (dozens of millions), I see no reason why should it end as a nation.


----


Before we get bogged down, I'll end this thought experiement by saying that I DO NOT say that a nuclear war would have been fun and that the West would have easily won it. I just say that had the was started in 1962, the Soviets would lose it.

Now let's get back on topic.

 

[Winner]

Really?
Tell me, how USSR could use nukes to liberate world from "capitalist oppression"?

Read again the post you're reacting on. They wanted the nuke because it was the only advantage the US had.

Comparing to USA, USSR was totally in defensive position since 1945, there wasn't any possibility to attack them and achieve any success.

First, get the facts right. The US as well as other Western countries fully demobilized after WW2, while the USSR didn't. In 1946-47, Soviets had huge conventional superiority. They were lacking in airforce and they didn't have the nuke, so the march towards the English channel was postponed. Deliberate US misinformation also played its role, since they convinced the rest of the world that they had hundreds of nukes, while they actually had just a few. Had the Soviets known that, they would have attacked without much hesitation, the whole Europe was defenceless and ready for taking in just few weeks or months at maximum. And BTW, Soviet government was perfectly prepared to sacrifice few Russian cities, if the price was the whole Western Europe. Nukes in the 1940's were of the same type used against Japan, not thermonuclear weapons. The damage they could have caused to Russia was minimal, at least that's what Stalin thought (to his death he was downplaying the importance of nukes).

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.

How old are you? 25? 30? 40? Either way, Soviet Union reached a nuclear parity with the US in the early 1970's, since then nuclear war would have devastated both sides equally. It was a very different situation from the 1940's and 1950's.

 

[RedRalph]

Well Winner, it seems we dont disagree on how much devestation the USSR could have inflicted on the US, merely what "total devestation" means. If youre happy to leave it there, so am I, because we arent going to agree and neither of us can concievably PROOVE our points. I will say, though, that while the USSR lost 28m in WW2, it happened over a period of 3 1/2 years, they had time to rebuild, relocate industry etc. If the Us lost all its major cities (and probably most of its oil industry and industrial capacity), then personally I think it would in no way exist as a country, rather on a map there might be a line surrounding it, but there is no way it would be a controlled, governed and administrated nation state as we know it. enough threadjacking.

 

[red_elk]

Read again the post you're reacting on. They wanted the nuke because it was the only advantage the US had.

I was reacting on propaganda-style rhetoric ("liberating", etc). Probably, you think that governments use such expressions, while planning military operations, "let's liberate Iraq from despotic totalitarian regime of Saddam", I highly doubt it. Such ideological stamps were used by both sides only for brainwashing people. And still using sometimes.

First, get the facts right. The US as well as other Western countries fully demobilized after WW2, while the USSR didn't. In 1946-47, Soviets had huge conventional superiority. They were lacking in airforce and they didn't have the nuke, so the march towards the English channel was postponed. Deliberate US misinformation also played its role, since they convinced the rest of the world that they had hundreds of nukes, while they actually had just a few. Had the Soviets known that, they would have attacked without much hesitation, the whole Europe was defenceless and ready for taking in just few weeks or months at maximum. And BTW, Soviet government was perfectly prepared to sacrifice few Russian cities, if the price was the whole Western Europe. Nukes in the 1940's were of the same type used against Japan, not thermonuclear weapons. The damage they could have caused to Russia was minimal, at least that's what Stalin thought (to his death he was downplaying the importance of nukes).

These are not a facts, these are your fantasies. Stalin could easily occupy whole Europe in 1945, that's true, but he didn't do it because USSR couldn't afford new total war with former allies. All documents in archives are uncovered now. USSR had no plans to attack own allies in 1945, USA and Britain had, unfortunately.

How old are you? 25? 30? 40? Either way, Soviet Union reached a nuclear parity with the US in the early 1970's, since then nuclear war would have devastated both sides equally. It was a very different situation from the 1940's and 1950's.

I'm 29, but it doesn't matter, because USSR didn't use such rhetoric in internal propaganda even after parity was achieved. It's hard to imagine we would attack anybody right after war where we lose 27 millions of people and had almost destroyed industry.

 

[WICKLC1]

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.

Pakistan is more moderate and gets millions of dollars from the USA every year. Also, they don't hate the Indians in the way that the Iranians hate us.
They won't use it as soon as they get it, but they are willing to.

 

[philippe]

Pakistan is more moderate and gets millions of dollars from the USA every year. Also, they don't hate the Indians in the way that the Iranians hate us.They won't use it as soon as they get it, but they are willing to.

O RLY?

I'm sorry, but have you ever heard about kashmir?

 

[WICKLC1]

O RLY?

I'm sorry, but have you ever heard about kashmir?

Yes I have. But holy wars are always much more vicious than territorial ones. Even though the Indians are Hindu and the Pakistanis are Muslim, their dispute is mostly territorial.

 

[philippe]

Yes I have. But holy wars are always much more vicious than territorial ones. Even though the Indians are Hindu and the Pakistanis are Muslim, their dispute is mostly territorial.

You never heard about the religious violence then in India and Pakistan, it seems.

 

[WICKLC1]

You never heard about the religious violence then in India and Pakistan, it seems.

Mostly

The dispute between the 2 governments is mostly territorial. The Pakistani government is much more secular than others in the middle east.

 

[philippe]

Mostly

The dispute between the 2 governments is mostly territorial. The Pakistani government is much more secular than others in the middle east.

Mostly territorial?

we are talking about an conflict between two governments becuase of their religion. kashmir's populace is muslim, but the ruler was a hindu, he chose the side of India, but of course the muslims disagreed, from that point on, they waged wars on each other and even developed nukes.

Terrorist attacks and ethnic and religious violence from both sides are not uncommon.
How does that even compare to Iran vs America?

 

[scy12]

So long it's a multipolar democratic world , yes.

 

[Shekwan]

Yes I have. But holy wars are always much more vicious than territorial ones. Even though the Indians are Hindu and the Pakistanis are Muslim, their dispute is mostly territorial.

So why do Iranians ''hate'' the US more than the Kashmir example. You're saying that the Iranians have a dispute with the US over religion?

 

[red_elk]

Pakistan is more moderate and gets millions of dollars from the USA every year. Also, they don't hate the Indians in the way that the Iranians hate us.
They won't use it as soon as they get it, but they are willing to.

You are right, from the point of view of US citizen, Iran is much more dangerous to you. Today, Pakistan is american satellite, but this region is very unstable, things can change very fast (as occured in Iran before). We can eventually get there some crazy regime with nuclear club.

 

[WICKLC1]

So why do Iranians ''hate'' the US more than the Kashmir example. You're saying that the Iranians have a dispute with the US over religion?

Yes actually, the Iranians do hate the USA. They hate us because we are infidels, they hate our entire way of life.

 

[WICKLC1]

You are right, from the point of view of US citizen, Iran is much more dangerous to you. Today, Pakistan is american satellite, but this region is very unstable, things can change very fast (as occured in Iran before). We can eventually get there some crazy regime with nuclear club.

Yes, up until now Pakistan's nukes have been held by a relatively secular and moderate government, but that could change anytime.

 

[WICKLC1]

Mostly territorial?

we are talking about an conflict between two governments becuase of their religion. kashmir's populace is muslim, but the ruler was a hindu, he chose the side of India, but of course the muslims disagreed, from that point on, they waged wars on each other and even developed nukes.

Terrorist attacks and ethnic and religious violence from both sides are not uncommon.
How does that even compare to Iran vs America?

Both countries have claimed the region since 1947 citing various religious, historical, and political reasons. In the end its just another case of "this is mine and not yours".

 

[philippe]

Yes actually, the Iranians do hate the USA. They hate us because we are infidels, they hate our entire way of life.

Do you really think every Iranian hates the USA or hating the way of life?

Boy, you've been seriously brainwashed. Most poeple keep themselve's buzy with their daily lives, that also includes Iran, most Iranians are keeping themselves buzy with their life, what do they really care about the USA?

Oh yeah, you see those pictures of mass rallies and thousands shouting "death to America" but as soon as you realise that's just Iranian propaganda, the better. Besides, how do you think the average Iranian will think of the USA when his country get's bombed?

 

[Shekwan]

Do you really think every Iranian hates the USA or hating the way of life?

Boy, you've been seriously brainwashed. Most poeple keep themselve's buzy with their daily lives, that also includes Iran, most Iranians are keeping themselves buzy with their life, what do they really care about the USA?

Oh yeah, you see those pictures of mass rallies and thousands shouting "death to America" but as soon as you realise that's just Iranian propaganda, the better. Besides, how do you think the average Iranian will think of the USA when his country get's bombed?

Exactly. The average Iranian doesn't hate the US, well not right now anyway.

And if they do hate the US, do you remove the problem by bombing the country to ****?

 

[WICKLC1]

Do you really think every Iranian hates the USA or hating the way of life?

Boy, you've been seriously brainwashed. Most poeple keep themselve's buzy with their daily lives, that also includes Iran, most Iranians are keeping themselves buzy with their life, what do they really care about the USA?

Oh yeah, you see those pictures of mass rallies and thousands shouting "death to America" but as soon as you realise that's just Iranian propaganda, the better. Besides, how do you think the average Iranian will think of the USA when his country get's bombed?

Of course not every Iranian hates the USA, but you have to realize that many children in the middle east, especially in Iran, are taught from a young age to hate the USA and Israel and to blame the USA and Israel for all of their problems. The sooner we acknowledge that they hate us, and realize why they hate us, the sooner we can solve the current problem in the middle east. I don't think either of us have been brainwashed, but I do think that you are rather naive for not acknowledging the fact that many Muslims in the middle east hate the USA and its way of life.

 

[red_elk]

Of course not every Iranian hates the USA, but you have to realize that many children in the middle east, especially in Iran, are taught from a young age to hate the USA and Israel and to blame the USA and Israel for all of their problems. The sooner we acknowledge that they hate us, and realize why they hate us, the sooner we can solve the current problem in the middle east. I don't think either of us have been brainwashed, but I do think that you are rather naive for not acknowledging the fact that many Muslims in the middle east hate the USA and its way of life.

How do you think, what is the reason? Why they hate USA so much and don't hate say France or Canada?