Are nuclear weapons still neccessary?

[Newtons Bit]

Because that's worked out for the world so far...

Actually, it's done pretty well. Can you think of any war in the past 65 years that embroiled entire earth and led to more than 50 million dead? How about 10 million?

The major powers no longer directly fight against each other. It's an amazing thing.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you read what I wrote? Openness? Transparency? On all sides? Nations need to be seen to disarm. That can be the only way. And that includes the U.S.

I read what you wrote. I was just pointing out that if what you say is true, the Obama agreement with Putin is doomed to fail because the Russians have a long history of not being open, honest or transparent where nuclear arsenals (and WMD arsenals) are concerned. I wasn't talking about the fact that Obama's administration has been one of the least open and transparent in years.

 

[John Jones]

Remember that the Soviets were ahead of the Americans on at least one metric of humanity: upon witnessing a nuclear test, Kruschev was reported to remark that he was no longer as worried about nuclear weapons, as it was clear to him that no country would ever again think of using them.

Kruschev had no problem secretly delivering tactical nukes to Cuba.

 

[INRM]

Seismosaurus,

500 seems a little low. I'd go for about 1,000 warheads on SLBM/ICBM, and about 500 bombs on B52/1/2 bombers.

Sounds reasonable to me as far as I see


CainKain1,

We still need nukes as a deterrant against small terrorist nations such as North Korea and Iran

Correct


Moochie,

Nuclear disarmament will succeed as long as all parties in the nuclear club are completely open and transparent regarding their stores of nukes.

Yeah, and gigantically powerful nations with huge militaries never keep secrets...


BeAChooser,

Then Obama's agreement is surely doomed to fail since the Russians have repeatedly lied about that.

Correct

Here's a question for everyone:

Why is Russia building a multi-million square foot deep underground facility under Yamantau mountain in the Urals?

Because their government is worried a potential nuclear exchange might happen so they want to create a shelter to protect themselves from the attack.

 

[Moochie]

I read what you wrote. I was just pointing out that if what you say is true, the Obama agreement with Putin is doomed to fail because the Russians have a long history of not being open, honest or transparent where nuclear arsenals (and WMD arsenals) are concerned. I wasn't talking about the fact that Obama's administration has been one of the least open and transparent in years.

I have no idea of your politics... But, really, unless you're in the thick of it, do you think that what a couple of anonymous geeks in a forum say is going to register beyond your and my eyeballs?

What I was saying was apropos not of what is currently happening, but what needs to happen, along the lines of what the late Ronald Reagan said in regard to such matters. I think the leaders of all countries are fully aware of what failure in this regard can mean.

M.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Actually, it's done pretty well. Can you think of any war in the past 65 years that embroiled entire earth and led to more than 50 million dead? How about 10 million?

The major powers no longer directly fight against each other. It's an amazing thing.

Is that directly because of nuclear weapons though? Who's to say that the major powers decided that the cost of world war is just too high in lives lost?

 

[Biff Starbuck]

Please tell me this is a joke. Russia is a threat to the USA? Pull the other one.

Why are they not a threat? They have a large nuclear arsenal and view the US as a threat. They were and still are concerned about the US trying to foster in Russia a "velvet revolution" like the ones in other former Soviet republics. Call it paranoia, but after a history of invasions and attempts, many in the Russian government see the US as ready to steal their oil and mineral wealth and eliminate Russia as competition.

I know it is a lot to ask someone to sit through propaganda videos, but did you watch any of the Big American Show videos I linked to? It makes 9/11 truthers and Loose Change look almost sane. According to the view preached to Russian citizens by their government, the US is responsible for every bad thing that has happened in the world in the past 100 years. WWI, WWII, killing people only for financial profit, deliberately inventing pop culture to get Russians and Europeans distracted from having children thus allowing immigrants to take over their cities, ordering terrorist attacks including 9/11 in order to control people with fear. "Who cares the towers were destroyed by soldiers? Who cares that there were no passengers on Boeing that crashed into Pentagon?" "[The US] made these countries (former Soviet republics) our colonies." "We (the US) need Ukraine to get closer to Russia (with a graphic showing a missile launched from Europe into Russia.) The US ordered Georgia to attack South Ossetia because McCain was behind in the polls. The economic crisis was orchestrated in order to make a profit for the rich (like Bush) and allow Obama to control people with fear of poverty.

Any country with such a negative perception of America, feeling so persecuted and actively spreading that message to its youth to believe, sees America as a threat and a rival.

Are they an economic threat? No. A threat for a a Red Dawn style paratroop invasion? No. But they still have nuclear weapons and view the US as a threat to them. I would agree the threat is less now than in the 1980's, but argue it is higher than when Yeltsin was in power.

 

[funk de fino]

Why are they not a threat? They have a large nuclear arsenal and view the US as a threat. They were and still are concerned about the US trying to foster in Russia a "velvet revolution" like the ones in other former Soviet republics. Call it paranoia, but after a history of invasions and attempts, many in the Russian government see the US as ready to steal their oil and mineral wealth and eliminate Russia as competition.

I know it is a lot to ask someone to sit through propaganda videos, but did you watch any of the Big American Show videos I linked to? It makes 9/11 truthers and Loose Change look almost sane. According to the view preached to Russian citizens by their government, the US is responsible for every bad thing that has happened in the world in the past 100 years. WWI, WWII, killing people only for financial profit, deliberately inventing pop culture to get Russians and Europeans distracted from having children thus allowing immigrants to take over their cities, ordering terrorist attacks including 9/11 in order to control people with fear. "Who cares the towers were destroyed by soldiers? Who cares that there were no passengers on Boeing that crashed into Pentagon?" "[The US] made these countries (former Soviet republics) our colonies." "We (the US) need Ukraine to get closer to Russia (with a graphic showing a missile launched from Europe into Russia.) The US ordered Georgia to attack South Ossetia because McCain was behind in the polls. The economic crisis was orchestrated in order to make a profit for the rich (like Bush) and allow Obama to control people with fear of poverty.

Any country with such a negative perception of America, feeling so persecuted and actively spreading that message to its youth to believe, sees America as a threat and a rival.

Are they an economic threat? No. A threat for a a Red Dawn style paratroop invasion? No. But they still have nuclear weapons and view the US as a threat to them. I would agree the threat is less now than in the 1980's, but argue it is higher than when Yeltsin was in power.

Most of the Russians I know laugh at the crap you have given us in your sources. Similar to the way a lot of people see Fox news.

 

[quarky]

Nukes are so 'yesterday'.

Nukes are gay, even.

Biology is where its at, for the big kill.

I never liked that nukes, and lesser explosions, necessarily drag all the non-humans into our pathetic fights.

 

[Biff Starbuck]

Most of the Russians I know laugh at the crap you have given us in your sources. Similar to the way a lot of people see Fox news.

I agree completely.

But what if Fox news was the official news agency of the government? For good reason Russians have for a long time not trusted the official news sources that told them what to think. The majority of Russians and Soviet citizens read Pravda and Izvestia to know what the party line was to stay out of trouble. I am not discussing what the average Russian citizen thinks. They know their government propaganda machine and many laugh at it. But unfortunately, just as with Fox news, some believe it. Propaganda works.

The English-language Russia Today network is the newest version of finding out what Russians are encouraged to think, and what the government of Russia wants the world to believe. While the US reduces the budgets of Voice of America, Russia is spreading Russia Today around the world. I have seen Russia Today use Alex Jones as a source. Either the government of Russia believes what Jones says, or they find it convenient to quote him to spread negative stories about the US.

My concern is that the same Kremlin that controls the propaganda controls the nuclear weapons.

 

[Biff Starbuck]

Biology is where its at, for the big kill.

Biology is still too hard to aim.

Either it is difficult to use, or so effective and infectious that it comes back to kill your own population. While a pandemic is good for the big kill, it is hard to be selective.

 

[PhantomWolf]

500 seems a little low. I'd go for about 1,000 warheads on SLBM/ICBM, and about 500 bombs on B52/1/2 bombers.

How about we split the different and go with 700... Oh, hang on, that's what they have done...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Actually the real question is were nukes ever neccessary?

 

[aviolet4u]

when I think of terrorists who train/brainwash others to blow themselves and others up with promises of heaven and them getting their hands on one of these...

well I try not to think of it often.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think the leaders of all countries are fully aware of what failure in this regard can mean.

Do you think the leaders of Russia (then the USSR) were unaware what failure of the arms control measures they signed and then cheated on could mean? How are those leaders any different today?

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually the real question is were nukes ever neccessary?

Actually, that question is moot.

 

[MikeMangum]

Hell. No.

They were talking about MAD on the radio the other day. The only thing MAD is the idea of using one even in retaliation. Essentially, you would be condemning millions of innocent lives to death for the actions of a few maniacs. Already in conventional warfare we have the ability to destroy a nation, as we did with Iraq. And we didn't even break a sweat. We have the ability to eliminate any force or commander for much fewer casualties than what a nuclear attack would cause. The only excuse ever given for their uses were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The excuse was that it saved us from doing a ground invasion that would have cost more lives. That's an excuse that has no bearing anymore. The sizes of modern militaries are tiny compared to national populations. Wiping them out would be a lot less costlier than wiping about entire cities.

si vis pacem, para bellum

This has been a well known concept for millenia.

 

[theprestige]

Except that small nukes are indistinguishable from large conventional explosives, minus the rather glaring drawbacks that you cite.

Indistinguishable except for their obvious difference in size, you mean. And this has a number of important strategic and tactical implications you may find it interesting to consider sometime.

 

[Thunder]

Actually the real question is were nukes ever neccessary?

they prevented WW3.

 

[Bikewer]

Even with reduced arsenals, the most effective first strike possible by the Russians would only result in their effective obliteration.
Mutually Assured Destruction would still be the case, and I'm sure the Russians are well aware of this....