Proliferation's natural result...

[CavLancer]

Ukraine gave up their nukes for an agreement with the US/UK. It was a mistake. If the Ukraine could take out Moscow I seriously doubt Putin would have invaded. So, the world is watching this. After this any nation which expects the western democracies to get off their collective arses and come help deserves what they get. So, the solution to preventing war is to acquire nukes.

So lets say in 50 years everyone is Israel, quietly having nukes, everyone knows it, but not officially saying so.

Is that the end of war, or the end of civilization?

 

[warpus]

I'm not so sure I'd have been comfortable with Ukraine pointing nukes at Moscow either though. That sounds like a far more scary proposition than the crisis we've found ourselves in. I'm a bit biased in that I have a lot of family who live in the general geographic area though.. No way would I want a nuclear standoff so close nearby.

The thing about nukes is that they will always be around, even if just in storage. You know, in case of aliens or killer asteroids or whatever. That and and some countries will just never want to give them up.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Isn't everyone having "quietly" nukes? We don't have many nations that in midst of a show suddenly include a PSA telling the populace that the nation you're currently living in is 45th in nuclear rankings.

 

[peter grimes]

This isn't a new assessment, though.

North Korea has known this since forever. And in case anyone had any lingering doubts, our invasion of Iraq hammered the message home: Get nukes or you risk getting invaded.

 

[Kozmos]

I think it's been a growing trend, for states with middling armed forces to consider the nuclear option. It gives them a helluva lot more bargaining power than upping the size and scope of their forces.

 

[Leoreth]

And once again, public opinion deems nuclear deterrent acceptable if the state that has to be scared away happens to be Russia.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's not really so clear-cut that the nukes the Ukrainians had really belonged to them in the first place.

 

[History_Buff]

The thing about nukes is that they will always be around, even if just in storage. You know, in case of aliens or killer asteroids or whatever. That and and some countries will just never want to give them up.

For the record, if a killer asteroid suddenly made itself known, using a nuke on it somehow would generally be an ineffective and bad idea.

 

[Borachio]

I agree, blasting it into little bits probably wouldn't make it better: you'd likely just spray the entire Earth with lots of little pieces of radioactive rock.

It would be better just to send up a small unmanned spacecraft into its near vicinity: if done far enough away from Earth, the very small gravitational action of the mass of the spacecraft on the asteroid could be enough to deflect it away from a collision with the Earth.

 

[warpus]

For the record, if a killer asteroid suddenly made itself known, using a nuke on it somehow would generally be an ineffective and bad idea.

Yeah, it would usually break up into smaller pieces and cause more problems. But it'd be a good last resort type weapon to have. Maybe we could detonate the nuke in the path of the asteroid, changing its course while not making it break up into smaller pieces? I dunno, but I see some potential use there.

Cause I mean, if we're not going to use nukes on asteroids and aliens, what good are they?

 

[Borachio]

International realpolitik. No one can ever know for sure that someone or other wouldn't nuke them.

 

[History_Buff]

I agree, blasting it into little bits probably wouldn't make it better: you'd likely just spray the entire Earth with lots of little pieces of radioactive rock.

It would be better just to send up a small unmanned spacecraft into its near vicinity: if done far enough away from Earth, the very small gravitational action of the mass of the spacecraft on the asteroid could be enough to deflect it away from a collision with the Earth.

Yeah, it would usually break up into smaller pieces and cause more problems. But it'd be a good last resort type weapon to have. Maybe we could detonate the nuke in the path of the asteroid, changing its course while not making it break up into smaller pieces? I dunno, but I see some potential use there.

Well one big issue is that detonating the nukes probably wouldn't break the asteroid apart in any case. And breaking it into one or two half sized chunks would indeed likely be much worse.

Borachio is correct in that the best option (assuming we have the time) is to use a gravitational tugboat of sorts and try to nudge it out of the way. The best thing we could do with a nuke is probably just to ram lots of them into the asteroid without detonating them, and use that change in momentum to nudge it aside.

Cause I mean, if we're not going to use nukes on asteroids and aliens, what good are they?

Indeed, I'm pretty convinced they've been an important part of preventing further Great Power wars.

 

[CavLancer]

I'm not so sure I'd have been comfortable with Ukraine pointing nukes at Moscow either though. That sounds like a far more scary proposition than the crisis we've found ourselves in. I'm a bit biased in that I have a lot of family who live in the general geographic area though.. No way would I want a nuclear standoff so close nearby.

The thing about nukes is that they will always be around, even if just in storage. You know, in case of aliens or killer asteroids or whatever. That and and some countries will just never want to give them up.

Everyone points nukes at Moscow, what's one more? Btw the Russians never attacked any of the countries that do have nukes pointed at them. So, nuclear weapons make one more safe, not less. Right?...

Anyway that's roughly the point, whether nukes end war or end civilization. Should have made a poll. Turns out the debate is whether they work on asteroids.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

While certainly Nuclear Weapons are a deterrent to war, I believe a Great Power War is certainly possible without their use.

My evidence to this is the limited use of chemical weapons in WWII and it was seen the destruction they could cause in WWI.

Chemical weapons are far less destructive than nuclear so I figure it could still apply.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wouldn't the Russians have more reason to invade the Ukraine, or intervene militarily before Yanukovich fell? I mean, after all, if the Russians are genuinely frightened by events in the Ukraine, which everything points to right now, why would they be inclined to calmly sit back and watch events unfold as they will, with the fate of a nuclear arsenal involved? And, let's be honest, do you think the EU and the United States wouldn't be less inclined to celebrate political instability in the Ukraine, with a nuclear arsenal involved?

Moreover, people point to North Korea, but nobody was trying to military occupy North Korea anyway. On the other hand, how many times has Pakistan's sovereignty been violated in the last few years? How many times have they even threatened the use of such weapons in retaliation? They haven't, because they'd look ridiculous. If anyone took the threat seriously, the natural response would be to prepare a nuclear first strike on such a dangerous regime.

So why should we assume the Ukrainians would make more convincing suicidal fanatics? Because that of course is what the Ukrainian threat would be. They wouldn't have had anything approaching the power of the Russian Nuclear arsenal, if they even could have maintained an independent nuclear deterrent at all. And if they had, what would their threat have amounted to? Russia will withdraw it's troops from the Ukraine, or we'll take an unprecedented action and launch a war that will kill all of us?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's not really so clear-cut that the nukes the Ukrainians had really belonged to them in the first place.

The fact of the matter is they had them. And gave them up under the condition that their sovereignty and their boarders were guaranteed - including by Russia (!).
And from an Ukrainian perspective, they rightfully feel pulled over the barrel by now. Just reaffirming that nothing says guaranteed like atomic warheads.

 

[CavLancer]

The fact of the matter is they had them. And gave them up under the condition that their sovereignty and their boarders were guaranteed - including by Russia (!).
And from an Ukrainian perspective, they rightfully feel pulled over the barrel by now. Just reaffirming that nothing says guaranteed like atomic warheads.

What he said. Right now the Ukraine us calling on the West to come to their aid. The West will retaliate, as long as nobody gets hurt and only sanctions that don't cost too much.

Instead the Ukraine could be threatening the Russians, their words backed by nuclear weapons. BUT! it would never have come to it since the Russians would never have invaded for the same reason they never tried to take West Germany or even Berlin by force. Because Nukes keep the peace.

Unless of course terrorists get them, but that's a different thread.

 

[Tahuti]

While certainly Nuclear Weapons are a deterrent to war, I believe a Great Power War is certainly possible without their use.

My evidence to this is the limited use of chemical weapons in WWII and it was seen the destruction they could cause in WWI.

Chemical weapons are far less destructive than nuclear so I figure it could still apply.

That's not evidence, just precedent. Though India and Pakistan have waged conventional war in the past while both of them had nukes. Also, chemical weapons were far less publicised as a potential choice. Another problem is that chemical weapons are more difficult to use without dealing friendly damage.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

That's not evidence, just precedent. Though India and Pakistan have waged conventional war in the past while both of them had nukes. Also, chemical weapons were far less publicised as a potential choice. Another problem is that chemical weapons are more difficult to use without dealing friendly damage.

You have some valid points here.

I think a much more serious concern with nuclear weapons and war would be that in the chaos terrorists could get away with one. Especially if a truly Great Power invaded a minor power with them.

In any case, Great Power Wars are not out of the question I feel. The question is, will there only be one more (nuclear)? Or many more (conventional)?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

For the record, if a killer asteroid suddenly made itself known, using a nuke on it somehow would generally be an ineffective and bad idea.

This isn't yet the full consensus on the issue. It's probably our 'least good' option, but it's still an option.

In the even of an unknown asteroid approaching with very short notice, we probably wouldn't have the time to do much else. Also, we have so many nuclear warheads that chances are we could bombard an asteroid enough to break it (and the resulting pieces) down into small enough chunks to be burnt up in the atmosphere and/or impart enough energy on the larger chunks that they miss the Earth entirely.

Even if that failed and we get hit with asteroid shrapnel, being hit by lots of smaller pieces will be far and way preferable to being hit by a very large asteroid. Our society and the Earth's environment can absorb a lot of smaller impacts but beyond a certain size we can't absorb even one.