Will we ever throw the ring into Mt. Doom?

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I was totally making it up, though I am sure it is close to the truth by casualties if nothing else.

Just as I am sure you are wrong, although I can't back it up.
Don't forget that most of WWII happened before nukes were developed. I have my doubts as to whether all the wars between all the world's countries since then combined can equal that many casualties.

 

[Noldodan]

Love the thread title Sultan.

My views. We can't really keep everyone from having nukes, its a scientific impossibility. 1) There is uranium in many places in the world, and it would be near impossible to secure all sources of it. 2) Any good library in the world, of which there are several in every country, will have the information necessary to make at least a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon. 3) Its a big planet. There are many places where no one other than the ones building the weapon would be able to find out about it.

And as to Meirsheimer's idea, he wasn't the first to think it up. It was actually Frank Herbert in "Dune." Every planet in the Imperium possessed "atomics" (nukes) and had signed a pact that if ANYONE were to use them aginst anyone else, the attacker would have the combined nuclear forces of the entire Imperium against him. The whole point of keeping them was to a) keep everyone on an even footing and b) a defense vs. a possible alien invasion. Of course, the entire Imperium was constantly in a Cold War-like state, but it was better than having some renegade take the whole thing with superweapons. Whether or not such a plan would be able to work in real life is debatable, and probably impossible. Reminds me of communism!

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I was totally making it up, though I am sure it is close to the truth by casualties if nothing else.

Of course, there has also been the exponential-curve rise in world population, of which the last 50 years saw (IIRC) a trebling of world population. I think I read somewhere that there were as many people alive within the last century as there have been in all the years before that.... So of course casualties in wars will reflect the larger numbers of people in war areas, and the larger armies such numbers can produce. I'd be willing to bet (without knowing for sure) that the statistical deathrate due to war has probably been lower these past few decades than ever before, on a per-capita basis.

As for the topic, I think if and when we start expanding significantly into space, nukes may become obsolete--or maybe not, but replaced with orbital weapons (or moving a simple asteroid might do the trick). But I do envision the possibility of a Dune-like "Great Convention" against WMD, whereby a universal treaty binds all signatories to unanimously attack anyone who USES them (in the novel, the Great Houses had stockpiles of "atomics" just in case, but never dared use them).

We'll never be able to "uninvent" them of course, and in the not-too-distant future the knowledge to make them will probably be universal. And the "non-state actors" with nothing to lose (terrorists) will of course be a wild card--not sure what the long-term solution to that problem is, as our proposed course of action basically amounts to holding a line, in that regard. And of course, a "Great Convention" will not affect them.

Maybe we will have to build great underground cities--which will be sad. Well, we could at least make these undergrounds large enough and easily-accessible enough that a citizenry can evacuate to there in the 30-odd-minutes notice they'd have (good luck!). As for "suitcase nukes", there'd be no notice unless someone spots them, of course.

 

[Noldodan]

On the subject of "suitcase nukes." there is exactly ONE way to prevent their usage: figuring out that they're there. you would need radiological detectors atationed EVERYWHERE, at great cost

 

[Greadius]

The problem is that countries willing to get rid of nuclear weapons are the only one's who aren't willing to use them.

Meanwhile, those that pursue their development (like Iraq, Iran, North Korea) are unlikely to be swayed by any movements of unilateral disarmament.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Nuclear material still isn't on sale at the corner bodega. And our satellite technology is nothing to sniff at. "Dirty bombs" may be possible, but to pretend we can't really detect and stop nuclear proliferation seems to me an excuse for ex post facto warmaking.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Noldodan
On the subject of "suitcase nukes." there is exactly ONE way to prevent their usage: figuring out that they're there. you would need radiological detectors atationed EVERYWHERE, at great cost

Encasing them in lead would get around that, wouldn't it? Or can modern detectors get around that now?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
we can't really detect and stop nuclear proliferation seems to me an excuse for ex post facto warmaking.

And when we detect it and try to stop it the UN won't let us

 

[Noldodan]

allan, i was not aware of any way to defeat radiological ideas, but that one sure does make sense

and Sultan, would we be able to, say, prevent some crazy people (terrorists, hippies, etc.) from obtaining nuclear material from a source that we are not yet aware of, e.g. a new mine? and satellite detection would be difficult if the bomb-makers were to use a lead shield (thanks allan!)

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Nuclear material still isn't on sale at the corner bodega. And our satellite technology is nothing to sniff at. "Dirty bombs" may be possible, but to pretend we can't really detect and stop nuclear proliferation seems to me an excuse for ex post facto warmaking.

All it would take would be a few guys, working in a cave or underground structure out in East Bumf*ck, Nowhere, to produce ONE--and not be afraid to carry it in a suitcase, or slip it on a freightcar on the railroad to some big city. Even if and when satellites can penetrate significantly underground, we only have so many of them, and so many people to pore over the millions of images generated by them. We're talking millions of square miles of territory worldwide. Sure, we may be able to deduce which areas to scrutinize with the most care, but a nuke could still literally seem to "come out of nowhere". Who knows? In 50 years, Lil' Junior and his teenage buds might be able to make one in their garage in Des Moines--life sucks at school, at home, etc., so they become disturbed and nihilistic....

 

[Noldodan]

*shivers* its so startlingly possible...

 

[onejayhawk]

Find me the ring and I'll do it. Until then the world will be a dangerous place. I fear it will remain dangerous afterward, but I'll give my all in the hope that future generations... I cant go on. I understand wishful thinking, but this is excessive.

J

 

[Zcylen]

the answer is easy: a big NO.


we're very used to war and until human being disappear from planet earth there will be wars.
maybe that would be the best.
we're a cancer for planet earth.

 

[ombadu]

Originally posted by Zcylen the answer is easy: a big NO.


we're very used to war and until human being disappear from planet earth there will be wars.
maybe that would be the best.
we're a cancer for planet earth.

You and many others here are not answering the question as stated.

The question was, "Will the world ever be rid of nuclear weapons? Should this be a goal? If so, how could that goal be reached?"

The answer is YES. Of course!

You don't really think that nuclear weapons will still be used in 2000 years do you?

The question was not, "Will the world ever be rid of war?" Nor was the question, "Will the world ever be rid of weapons of mass destruction?"

Today's WMD's will not even be considered to be WMD's in 2000 years. A WMD in 2000 years may be capable of decimating entire solar systems, and we can reasonably assume that it will be a much more advanced technology than today's nuclear technology.

"If so, how could that goal be reached?"

Through the development of more powerful, higher tech weapons and defenses, which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Nuclear Defense: there may come a day when all nuclear devices are renderred obsolete simply due to an invention of some sort of "nuclear bomb shield" that, upon detonation of the nuke, has the ability to store the energy from the blast safely in a container, or force the particles to congeal into inert molecules and atoms. Why not?

"we're a cancer for planet earth"

Agreed. But we are going to colonize the galaxy. The fate of Earth may not be very significant in 2000 years, except for those who are still trapped on it.

The question, as stated, is a lot like asking in the year 2000 BC, "Will the world ever be rid of the spear?"

Well... YES. As a legitimate weapon. YES!

 

[Greadius]

So the quickest way to get rid of nuclear weapons would be to make them obsolete.

I'm sure a missile shield would help with that

 

[Morgasshk]

We will keep on making bombs... bigger and bigger bombs...
better and better bombs... wider and wider destruction until we make a bomb that encompasses the whole planet and the whole world is so on edge that we don't see or detect the aliens coming and they come and press the button for us and take over the squashed and soggy remains of humanity...

No one will evel give up their bombs without like action done simultaneously - so I say it will never happen - hopefully like in civ they will just upgrade to cleaner options - hey, at least that will factor out radiation sickness travelling through humanities genetic pool - we could all have mutants as great grandchildren...

blah... unless we get some nice race of peaceable aliens that will disarm everything for us then our world leaders will never take the initiative to be the first to disarm - it will leave them too open to attack and have no strong retaliation in return...

Morgasshk

 

[Jeratain]

In response to the thread title:

 

[jumbo2002]

Originally posted by Noldodan
Every planet in the Imperium possessed "atomics" (nukes) and had signed a pact that if ANYONE were to use them aginst anyone else, the attacker would have the combined nuclear forces of the entire Imperium against him.

I haven't read Dune, but this doesn't seem exactly the same. The Mearsheimer concept, as I recall, involved mutual bilateral nuclear deterrents. The importance of that is that it protects a nation from attack, even by conventional means, because it would immediately invite a nuclear response. However, if the nuclear option is paralyzed, then the system would revert to the ongoing threat of conventional war.

Unless, of course, a defender with these Dune "atomics" could deter a conventional attack with the threat of nuclear annihilation...or something.

Originally posted by allan2
Maybe we will have to build great underground cities--which will be sad.

"Mr. President, we have to prevent a mineshaft gap!"

Originally posted by Morgasshk
blah... unless we get some nice race of peaceable aliens that will disarm everything for us[/B]

Disarming us from behind the barrel of a gun, most likely.

(Or the equivalent, such as in The Day the Earth Stood Still.)

 

[Morgasshk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Morgasshk
blah... unless we get some nice race of peaceable aliens that will disarm everything for us[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Disarming us from behind the barrel of a gun, most likely."


Too damn true...

And there will always be the crazy people, the mad dictators etc.. distributing nukes willy-nilly won't work and eventually there will be a nuclear war... all it takes is one press of a button and we're all gone to sh.it... (even quicker if we build missile defence systems like in Terminator... hehe, Turbanator?)

Morgasshk

 

[Furry Spatula]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
We've had more conventional wars since the nuclear bomb was developed than all of recorded history before that.

Lets humor this idea as you did say you made it up. But assuming it is true. Has any country that possessed a nuke ceased to exist? Nope, Nukes are deternces. They may not prevent any wars from happening at all, but they do prevent forces from one country from pushing one country too far up against a wall. Not to turn this into a Iraq thread, I'm just gunna use this as an example. If Saddam does have nukes or WMD and there is a war waged against him, It better be a damn quick strike, 30 minutes and all military targets hit around the country, or else Saddam will fell threatened and launch them.

If anybody here has seen 13 Days you will recall how they had to make sure that they got all the nukes right away, as if they didn't then the Cubans/Russians would realize what was going on and would launch a strike. So in terms of that, nukes are a great deterance. If the Cubans just had extermely long range Cruise missiles then mostlikely there would have been a bombing campaign.

All said and done. I very much doubt there will be a full out nuclear war. I don't doubt nukes will never be used again, but mostlikely we won't annialate the world with nukes.

I realy doubt that Nukes will be made obsolete any time soon however. For the first time in the history of the world we have weapons that can destroy the world a few times over. Muskets, Knives, Artillary, and clubs could never deliver that much power. I predict that they will make nukes powerfull enough so the number needed wont be as large thus maintainance wont be as costly. But more likely weapons such as the daisy bomb is it? (the one which causes an explosion over a large area in the air so it causes a vacuum which lowers the airpressure and can level buildings and destroy vital organs do to the shock, not debris or the explosion as in conventional bombs. It was used in Afghanistan to get the Taliban that were in caves.) If anyone remembers the name of that weapon I'd like to be reminded.

But I do think more weapons like that will be created. More speciallized so it will be possible to kill enemies but not leave the land F*cked up for a long long time.