Why do we all still have nuke stockpiles?

[amaterasu]

my latest though train led me to this:

Why do we all still have nuke stockpiles?

It's not like anyone is about to use them, they just make things tenser, and as for the no wars argument, countries would still have conventional warfare, just leave the nukes out... and then there is all the problems caused by making them ect.ect.

So why exactly do countires still have nukes and make more nukes? Just wonderin'

 

[Turner]

Armies tend to not throw things away. Especially weapons.

Their reasoning is probably something along the lines of "We may not need them now, but we might need them soon."

 

[Che Guava]

They smell lovely and look great on your mantle....


wait, I might be thinking of daffodils....

 

[Steph]

The countries who have nukes don't plan to use it, but the fact they exist is a deterrent from any serious attack.

IF a nuke power is attacked and is loosing badly, it could use its nukes, making more damage to the attacker that it can gain --> attacking is useless

 

[Rambuchan]

Because maintaining hypocritical foreign policies and the existing world order is harder without them.

 

[Nylan]

The phrase "nuclear deterrent" comes to mind....

 

[Heretic_Cata]

The "If he won't throw them away then why should we ?" policy.

 

[Winner]

You never know when few nukes might come handy

 

[amaterasu]

The countries who have nukes don't plan to use it, but the fact they exist is a deterrent from any serious attack.

IF a nuke power is attacked and is loosing badly, it could use its nukes, making more damage to the attacker that it can gain --> attacking is useless

Yeah, but then the attacking country would most likley also be a nuclear power ( you don't generally attack a country that could beat you) , so there is the threat from both sides. But as the threat is too great, both just avoid using nukes, still have the war, just on a smaller scale.

And most nuclear nations are friends now :] also if anything the UN had more to do with the cold war not becoming then nukes ( bit OT but relevant)

Also why do you need the threat of certain destruction to not not try destory someone? All nations cna get along , what with bodies like the UN in place.

I se the point though, still find it a bit shakey.

 

[Steph]

The big problem, is now we have them it's very difficult to get rid of it

 

[JohnRM]

We have nuclear stockpiles, in part, because we just can't get rid of them fast enough. At one point, the United States had 32,000 nuclear weapons. We have been working day and night to reduce that number to just under 10,000 weapons, today. However, we have and will probably always have nuclear weapons for the same reason that we have 500 pound bombs and then we have 2,000 pound bombs. It always helps to have something bigger, and it doesn't get any bigger than a nuke.

A lot of fuss has been made over nuclear weapons, but the fact is that a bombing run of two or three dozen B-52s with incendiary bombs cause just as much damage and kill just as many people as a 500 kiloton nuclear warhead. What nuclear weapons do is save the lives of pilots, the fuel need to get them there, and free up resources for other missions.

Then, of course, a lot of fuss is made about radiation. Ninety percent of a nuclear weapon's radiation is released with the first seconds of the blast. Afterward, there is a steady decline in the radioactivity, in all but ground zero, is survivable after two or three weeks and less than harmful after two or three months.

The fact is that we could use nuclear weapons, albeit on a tactical level, today and it would probably cause less combat casualties and advance the end of major conflict, if it were not for the unreasonable stigma attached to their use. This stigma, dating from the Cold War, where it was presumed that any nuclear conflict would involve all of the nuclear powers of the time, would see the use of so many weapons that they entire northern hemisphere would be destroyed. In reality, even in that scenario, it is more than likely that forty percent of the population in the northern hemisphere would survive without any significant injuries suffered due to a Cold War Era Nuclear War. Another 20 percent of the population would survive, but with limited to serious injuries suffered. That is, of course, provided that cities were ever targeted on a large scale, which some military strategists suggest would never have happened. In that case, the survival rate jumps up to eighty-five percent, IIRC.

 

[Red Door]

And most nuclear nations are friends now :] also if anything the UN had more to do with the cold war not becoming then nukes ( bit OT but relevant)

They're not really friends, they're mostly partners. Russia-US relations aren't at a high point, PRC-US relations aren't good, Pakistan-US relations are falling, etc. PRC-Russia relations aren't good.

Also why do you need the threat of certain destruction to not not try destory someone? All nations cna get along , what with bodies like the UN in place.

Except the UN doesn't work that way. The UN is only good for things like humanitarian these days. No countries have ever gotten along because of the UN.

The big problem, is now we have them it's very difficult to get rid of it

Exactly, I don't think people know how difficult it is to get rid of a nuclear weapon. It isn't like a rifle or tank, that you can just burn or throw away.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Spoiler :

You never know when you'll need something with a great deal of explosive power

 

[Steph]

Exactly, I don't think people know how difficult it is to get rid of a nuclear weapon. It isn't like a rifle or tank, that you can just burn or throw away.

I was not speaking of the technical difficulty of getting rid of the weapon when I said it's difficult to get rid of it

 

[Red Door]

I was not speaking of the technical difficulty of getting rid of the weapon when I said it's difficult to get rid of it

Well, then, never mind my agreeing with you, but my point still stands.

 

[LordRahl]

Also why do you need the threat of certain destruction to not not try destory someone? All nations cna get along , what with bodies like the UN in place.

You got any other jokes?

UN is only good for taking bribes and passing anti-Israel recommendations. How can you take an organization that puts Iran in its Human Rights Commission seriously?

The Nukes are one of the big reasons there wasn't WW3 yet.

 

[Steph]

Well, then, never mind my agreeing with you, but my point still stands.

First, the thieves had no weapons. They started to get knifes. The cops got handguns. The thieves got handgun to.
As they are now some risk of being shot on both side, the government decide to ask the cops to go unarmed again.
What happens?
Well, the cops may be unarmed, but won't remain unharmed for long, will they?

 

[puglover]

Unfortunately, the way the world works, we have to have the big weapons even if we don't use them, simply to force other nations not to use theirs. It's sort of a "I'll put mine down when you put yours down" situation.

@John HSOG: Very good post.

 

[truckingpete]

Back during the Cold War, if North Dakota would have broke away from the United States, North Dakota would be the 3rd nuclear power, right behind Russia and the US, so you can see that they store nukes under places that people wont attack or in less populated areas.

When we drive around up here you can see the underground nuke silos form the road, they are labled alos, and if you get caught tresspassing, well just say you aint gonna see daylight anymore....

 

[nivi]

What the point of armies? Tanks? Jet fighters? Bombs? Missiles? Assualt rifles?

Nothing, except discouraging others then trying to invade you.

The "nobody is about to use to them" argument is bunk, becuase most armies are defensive, and nations won't use them, unless they have too.