Nuclear Weapons: A Force for Good?

[lovett]

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?

 

[RedRalph]

they have been in that time period, but the problem is at some stage they wont be, and if any other major players use them, it could be utterly catastrophic.

 

[Winner]

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?

So far, the role of nuclear weapons has been mostly positive. This can easily change into "very negative" if a nuclear war erupts between any significant nuclear states. You can kill 50% of NATO's population with roughly 400 mid-sized nukes, in other words, you can kill half a billion people in a few days.

 

[Moggy]

I agree that nuclear weapons have probably saved more people than they have killed. That doesn’t mean that will always be the case though! As the list of countries with nukes continues to grow, the chances of a nuclear war increase and sooner or later they will be used.

Swords and spears might have killed more but not many individual swords have killed 300,000 people in one swipe!

Of course an all out nuclear war would result in the world being a much more peaceful place…….

 

[Kozmos]

Do you know how many false positive alerts we had that almost led to nuclear war? We were *this* close to total annihilation. It was sheer luck and some brave missile commanders who decided not to launch.

 

[lovett]

I agree that nuclear weapons have probably saved more people than they have killed. That doesn’t mean that will always be the case though!

So far, the role of nuclear weapons has been mostly positive. This can easily change into "very negative" if a nuclear war erupts between any significant nuclear states.

they have been in that time period, but the problem is at some stage they wont be

Your right. At some point, nuclear weapons may be used on a large enough scale to kill a good portion of the worlds population. But without them, a conventional would war three would have been almost inevitable. So if you had the power, would you have permanently prevented the development of nuclear weapons post 1944? Basically, would you trade the strong probability of a massive new 20th century war with the weak possibility of future large-scale nuclear exchange(s)?

 

[RedRalph]

Your right. At some point, nuclear weapons may be used on a large enough scale to kill a good portion of the worlds population. But without them, a conventional would war three would have been almost inevitable. So if you had the power, would you have permanently prevented the development of nuclear weapons post 1944? Basically, would you trade the strong probability of a massive new 20th century war with the weak possibility of future large-scale nuclear exchange(s)?

But its not a weak possibility. the more time that goes by and the more countries that can build them, it becomes stronger. Yeah, it might not ever get back to 1983 levels. but even a small nuclear war would be unbelievably horrific.

 

[Winner]

Your right. At some point, nuclear weapons may be used on a large enough scale to kill a good portion of the worlds population. But without them, a conventional would war three would have been almost inevitable. So if you had the power, would you have permanently prevented the development of nuclear weapons post 1944? Basically, would you trade the strong probability of a massive new 20th century war with the weak possibility of future large-scale nuclear exchange(s)?

The possibility is not weak, and it was not weak during the Cuban Missile Crises, for example.

One might argue that were not the nuclear weapons what prevented war, but the bi-polar division of the world. For example, Israel has been attacked in 1973 by non-nuclear states despite the fact it already had a nuclear arsenal ready to be used against the aggressors.

Of course that's not what I think, because I do beleive that the threat of nuclear war forced the great powers to be reasonable. As for your question, no, I wouldn't have stopped it. Nukes might become handy one day.

 

[Shekwan]

Nukes might become handy one day.

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

 

[RedRalph]

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

Maybe if you live in Moyross...

 

[Winner]

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

Seriously, nuclear weapons might be needed for non-military purposes. My point is that not having them at all could be just as bad as having them.

 

[J-man]

Do you know how many false positive alerts we had that almost led to nuclear war? We were *this* close to total annihilation. It was sheer luck and some brave missile commanders who decided not to launch.

Don't forget that it is possible that nuclear weapons end up in the hands of terrorists.

 

[brennan]

I fail to see how people can look at how close we were to a nuclear holocaust and think that MAD was a great idea that is responsible for world peace.

 

[lovett]

The point is that nuclear holocaust didn't happen. The fact that it was close to happening is a complete non-issue when objectively evaluating the net affect of nuclear weaponry.

 

[brennan]

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

 

[Shylock]

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice in a military theatre.

Were they watching Dr. Strangelove?

Anyway, I think nuclear weapons do make politicians think twice about starting wars since their families and themselves are put into danger, not just their servants...err citizens.

 

[azzaman333]

If I'm ever in control of a nuclear weapon, the world is screwed tbh.

 

[Elrohir]

I'd say that nuclear weapons have had a net positive and stabilizing influence on the world since their creation. I don't think that's particularly controversial. What reasonable people can differ on is whether the risk of nuclear annihilation outweighs the stabilizing influence brought on by nuclear weapons and nuclear powers. I don't think it does, and I think we'll have nukes for an awful long time - but I can understand why others might disagree.

 

[Winner]

I fail to see how people can look at how close we were to a nuclear holocaust and think that MAD was a great idea that is responsible for world peace.

Isn't that quite obvious?

It's insane, as it name applies, but it is so horrific that it scares countries from aggression. Without nukes, Stalin would have launched his campaign of "liberation" of Western Europe by early 50's, China would have attacked Taiwan, India would have waged more wars with Pakistan etc.

 

[Ecofarm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLYEy7yqysA&feature=related

Spoiler :

Like moths to a flame
Is man never gonna change
Times seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If thats the only thing thats stopping war

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If thats the only thing that keeps the peace

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Today was tommorow yesterday
Its funny how the time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have

When war is obsolete
Ill thank God for wars defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more

Ill thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

The nuke ya nuke ya is lol.