So what's the problem?

[HamaticBabylon]

...with using Nuclear weapons in war time? Why do we build weapons if we are not going to use them? Why pay the maintenance cost if you’re never going to use these deadly weapons?

Why?

 

[Amenhotep7]

Tisk tisk, HamaticBabylon.

You should know that weapons can act as a diplomatic tool. And that's just what nukes are nowadays. Diplomatic tools. Countries maintain these nukes so they can wield them as diplomatic clout.

 

[Yom]

It is simply a deterrent.

 

[stormbind]

People are taught to believe that evil is a deterent. It is not diplomatic to intimidate better nations with the threat of nuking them.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

But why, don't they use it? Is it not like other missiles?

What the difference between a 100,000 cruise missiles or a nuclear weapon

 

[Amenhotep7]

But why, don't they use it? Is it not like other missiles?

Because no idiot wants to take the blame for starting a nuclear holocaust and destroying all life on earth.

What the difference between a 100,000 cruise missiles or a nuclear weapon

Besides from being used for different things, nukes leave radiation, which stays there for a LOOOOONG time. Generally life finds it difficult to recover from radiation in a timely manner.

 

[nonconformist]

Mutually. Assured. Destruction.

 

[Perfection]

What the difference between a 100,000 cruise missiles or a nuclear weapon

The big difference is with 100,000 cruise missiles you can selectively destroy hostile targets, With nuclear weapons it's basicly blow up everyone including lots and lots of innocents.

 

[Mungaf]

I think that nuclear weapons just might be the one of the best things to ever happen to humanity. They've pretty much assured that there will be no more massive wars between great powers and made us slightly more mindful of the destruction we are capable of. Think about the likelihood of World War II if there had been nuclear weapons back then.

Of course, that might all change with increased prolif/the ability of wackos to buy old nukes off the Kazakhstani black market or something.

 

[toh6wy]

True, but why does it matter how many a country has? What's the difference between having 500 nukes and 5,000? It's a pretty big deterrent either way.

 

[CurtSibling]

Methinks this thread is like asking why water is wet....Silly/pointless.

 

[Damnyankee]

...with using Nuclear weapons in war time? Why do we build weapons if we are not going to use them? Why pay the maintenance cost if you’re never going to use these deadly weapons?

Why?

:thumbdown :shakehead

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Yeah damnyankee, are you lost for words or is it the mere fact that you’re not able to present a good chase for not using nuclear weapons? Okay you say your sick of the idea, but why are there like 40,000 nuclear weapons on planet earth? Deterrent! I don't think so....

 

[YNCS]

World War III, if it ever happens, will likely blast us back to the Stone Age, if not the Microbiotic Age. Yes, I'm fully aware that there are some people, mainly academics with no military experience, who believe that "limited nuclear warfare" is a possibility, but anyone who thinks that some nuclear weapons are tactical is whistling in the wind. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which include chemical and biological weapons, are by their nature strategic. My major worry about this is that some third world country, say, Pakistan, with nuclear or other WMD capability, will sell the technology and deliver samples to another country which indulges in terrorism, say Libya. Ol' Moammar decides to get froggy with the U.S. or France or Chad and delivers his "Sword of Allah" nuke. In a very short time, the existence of the world depends on the leadership of a nuclear nation which is least stable.

 

[CurtSibling]

That about wraps it up!

Good post!

 

[Damnyankee]

Yeah damnyankee, are you lost for words or is it the mere fact that you’re not able to present a good chase for not using nuclear weapons? Okay you say your sick of the idea, but why are there like 40,000 nuclear weapons on planet earth? Deterrent! I don't think so....

I thought it could express what i meant in a form that would not take up 5 minutes of my time. However, I will explain anyway. Each nation(Russia and the US) has nukes for the simple fact that if one didn't have nukes, the other could keep the non-nuclear nation under there thumb. They could nuke and takeover without consequence. With MAD, no nation gets a upperhand that will kill millions.

 

[amadeus]

It's impractical to use. Their battlefield capacity is so limited that the diplomatic, economic, and environmental consequences are far too many to make them worth using.

 

[BasketCase]

Why don't we use nuclear weapons???

To begin, a quick reminder: we HAVE used nuclear weapons in the past.

That said, nuclear weapons were invented in a time when mass destruction was the preferred style of warfare. "Smart" weapons did not exist. In addition, in a war where an entire nation is putting its entire economy into the war, everybody is a legitimate target. Nuclear weapons were simply a bigger version of this mindset.

Some time after the invention of nuclear weapons, the mindset changed. Simple.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If its so simple, why do we still have nuclear weapons?

 

[BasketCase]

Because the mindset might change again.

A nuclear terrorist attack that destroys an entire city (whether Los Angeles or Paris or Frakfurt or whichever) would almost certainly put the attacked nation in the mood to wipe the offending nation off the Earth completely.