News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: "ENEMY NUKE INCOMING!! IT'S OVER!!" (Nuclear Weapons - Your Thoughts On Them?)  (Read 10745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chosen40k

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1431
  • Country: 00
  • Owned
So, what are your thoughts on Nuclear Weapons?

Are they needed to keep the peace?

Are they a threat to peace?

Are they too dangerous to keep?

Should they be eliminated?

Should they be treated as a serious problem?

Discuss.

_____________

Personally, I'd go with option 1. I believe that nukes are needed to keep the peace between super powers. If they never existed, we would probably be at WWIV or WWV by now.

Deterrence, plain and simple. Otherwise there would just be invasions left and right.

HOWEVER, as with Deterrence, only "sane" and developed countries should keep them, not with some crazy wacked up governments (*cough* Iran *cough*) or with no government (some (maybe most?) African countries).
On the topic of 40k vs. any other SciFi universe:

Quote from: Albatross_4Sale
the moral of the story, don't beslubber with warhammer 40k its just too overpowered and it is no fun to fight with.
Dawn of War II Unit Voices
Dawn of War II Community

Offline Mordecai

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
They are indeed a deterrent against attack, in the hands of rational leadership. The problem arises when they get into the hands of less-than rational people. If some ass-hat believes the afterlife is better for him, then what can be done to keep them from firing?
 If a country's leadership uses their nukes as a bargaining chip, how does one stop them? (North Korea may eventually use those damn things if their leadership doesn't change.)
How do you recommend stopping nuclear proliferation, though?
It's time to make like a fetus and head out...

Offline Gerald_Tremblay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
  • Country: ca
A quick thought. There's a theory called the democratic peace (can't remember who formulated it). In short, no democracy ever opened fire on any other democracy since the foundation of the first democratic state (USA) except for one time were Finland (or another northern country) was attacked by UK during WW2 because they sided with the Nazis to help them to destroy the commies (or something like that).

I can't say I have an elaborated opinion on the subject, but I don't think the actual peace climate (compared to the past peaces that were break between wars) we enjoy is solely due to nuclear weapons (if at all).
« Last Edit: February 1, 2010, 11:09:32 PM by Gerald_Tremblay »
“There are no atheism in foxholes” isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes.  – James Morrow

Quote from: Mr.Peanut about gambling
How your blood burns each time the Arrow Game dealer returns to each Zelda game, taking rupees in exchange for LIES!

Quote from: jawmonkey about rulelawying
This is why no Imperial force is complete without the addition of full-sized brass knuckles.

Offline NewHeretic

  • Same Heretic, New God | Ork Boy
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Country: us
Nuclear weapons are horribly indescriminant.  However, they are simply a step in military evolution.  There is no way a weapon can be invented, then voluntarily not made use of by someone.  Every nation that has nuclear weapons has used them for deterence, at least.  Everyone who doesn't have them wants them so that they don't feel so threatened.  If we somehow managed to get rid of all nuclear weapons, we'd simply be in the exact same military arms race but with slightly less powerful weapons.  That didn't manage to stop wars in the past so it is silly to assume that wars will be less harmful to humanity without involving nuclear weapons.

Now, in my opinion, if the rest of the world (specifically Russia) would quit moaning about the US's Star Wars program (SDI), we'd soon be able to move beyond the point of nuclear weapon usefulness.  Sure the USA would be the top dog militarily for awhile, but... Oh, wait.  We already are. ::)  Maybe every one else just needs to develope their own SDI equivalent so that no one, including the US, would have any practical use for nuclear weapons.

NewHeretic
Good advice from Joshua:

Choose you this day
Whom you will serve...
As for me and my house,
We will serve the Lord.

NewHeretic, forum policeman.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
They are and some have. The difference is the rest of the world isn't trying to site said defences in others backyards.  ;) Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Having military developments upon your borders causes concerns be they rational or not. Said concerns are real even if the threat causing these developments is imaginary.

Nations with nuclear weapons have not used them for deterrence. One nation has used theirs for offense and thankfully they were the first and only times said weapons have been used in anger.

HOWEVER, as with Deterrence, only "sane" and developed countries should keep them, not with some crazy wacked up governments (*cough* Iran *cough*) or with no government (some (maybe most?) African countries).

Disingenious argument there. Opinions differ as what constitutes a "sane" country. An undeveloped country is unable to develop said weapons and none have so far been given them. Added to the argument is the line drawn between nuclear technology and nuclear weaponry. That line is purely based upon how one country feels about another rather than anything useful.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Chosen40k

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1431
  • Country: 00
  • Owned
Nations with nuclear weapons have not used them for deterrence.

 ???


HOWEVER, as with Deterrence, only "sane" and developed countries should keep them, not with some crazy wacked up governments (*cough* Iran *cough*) or with no government (some (maybe most?) African countries).

Disingenious argument there. Opinions differ as what constitutes a "sane" country. An undeveloped country is unable to develop said weapons and none have so far been given them. Added to the argument is the line drawn between nuclear technology and nuclear weaponry. That line is purely based upon how one country feels about another rather than anything useful.

Agreed. It really is difficult to determine which countries are run by smart people or just smart rather unsavoury chap, what-ho old bean?s. It all just boils down to whose a serious threat or whose just annoying (like North Korea).
On the topic of 40k vs. any other SciFi universe:

Quote from: Albatross_4Sale
the moral of the story, don't beslubber with warhammer 40k its just too overpowered and it is no fun to fight with.
Dawn of War II Unit Voices
Dawn of War II Community

Offline Rasmus

  • The Ratcatcher
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33046
  • Country: 00
  • Lost Roads are now found!
    • 40kOnline
  • Armies: Squats
As a country with no (official) nuclear weapons and that has remained at peace since 1813 I must say that while they are interesting as theoretical exercises, they are not vital for remaining at peace. They are a means of brokering peace, via use of fear, but in no way are they the only way of attaining that goal.

Would the Soviets and the US have gone to blows if they didn't know they would be annihilated by the counterstrike? During the 50s and 50s they surely would, but I am not so sure now.

Lost Roads - finally released!


YouTube-clip of my Squat army.

Offline Shadows Revenge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 749
  • Country: 00
  • The All Knowing
  • Armies: Dark Eldar, Raven Guard
Nuclear weapons brought something to the table that no other weapon had before, mass indiscriminate destruction that can be quickly deployed. This technology that was originally developed for civilian use for power, turned into the defining moment in weapon technology since the invention of the gun. Like how a gun took war out of the hands of trained warriors and into the hands of the common man, Nuclear technology took war to the level of complete global extinction.

Now if they are vital to peace is a good question. If they were never invented? There would probably be something of a close equivalent, as countries are constantly looking to one up each other, but that is for what if books.

Since they are a reality now, I think nuclear weapons has become not an end to arms development, but a plateau that will take alot of technological advancements towards mass destruction to push beyond. As for mutual deterrence, no established country would want to see their source of power wiped off the face of the earth. It is the destruction caused by either rouge individuals, or other ways of undermining a country (economical or revolutionary) that is a more pressing matter than outright war. So right now wars like WW1 and WW2 will be along time off.

Offline burgers4me

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
  • Burgers, The Delicious Graduate
    • Story of The Gods (SotG)
The main problem I see, with the abundance of nuclear weapons today, is the need for retaliation in the case of a nuclear attack.

For example, lets say terrorists get hold of a nuclear device (I stress this is an example) and detonate in a large American city, say New York. This would kill or effect millions and cause possibly billions of dollars in damage.

America would be in shock, and the people would demand action, and action would be taken. This is where the problem would start. It would be perfectly feasable (and probable) for America to retaliate with bombs or their own nuclear weapons. There would probably be a requirement to show strength and so the reply might be heavy, to show you cannot harm the only 'superpower'. But a large strike could easily start a war with politics and signs of weakness.

I know this is not the best example, but the primary problem with nuclear weapons is actual use. You can't make a weapon without intending to use it, and once someone does, another person will. It will take one sadistic, or morally questioned person to start a ball rolling and it could feasably roll on to nuclear war.

I understand the arms race, but I don't understand the need to have weapons that can destroy entire countries or in the worst case scenario, the entire human race as we know it.
What, Wait?

Why do I even have this thing...

"There is no such thing as a bad story. Just one that can be improved."

Offline Sayt

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Country: 00
  • The Devil you think you know.
The main problem I see, with the abundance of nuclear weapons today, is the need for retaliation in the case of a nuclear attack.

For example, lets say terrorists get hold of a nuclear device (I stress this is an example) and detonate in a large American city, say New York. This would kill or effect millions and cause possibly billions of dollars in damage.

America would be in shock, and the people would demand action, and action would be taken. This is where the problem would start. It would be perfectly feasable (and probable) for America to retaliate with bombs or their own nuclear weapons. There would probably be a requirement to show strength and so the reply might be heavy, to show you cannot harm the only 'superpower'. But a large strike could easily start a war with politics and signs of weakness.

I know this is not the best example, but the primary problem with nuclear weapons is actual use. You can't make a weapon without intending to use it, and once someone does, another person will. It will take one sadistic, or morally questioned person to start a ball rolling and it could feasably roll on to nuclear war.

I understand the arms race, but I don't understand the need to have weapons that can destroy entire countries or in the worst case scenario, the entire human race as we know it.

The largest problem I see with this, is who the hell you're supposed to Nuke.  Terrorist orginisations are, by definition, not nations, and by definition, Terrorist actions are not commited by states.  The smallest thing you can really nuke is a city.  Cities belong to nations, not terrorist orginisations, catch my drift?

Back to the OP's question, I think it's....complicated.  As it is, Nuclear weapons are a fact, sad but true.  Some nations have them, some nations don't (Point of note, the five with the most Nuclear Weaons are also the five permanent members of the UN security council). 

As it is, I think they ended the war in Japan in the 1940's, and potentially prevented a major, direct armed struggle between NATO and the Soviet Bloc.

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Its a sad thing to say, but i don't doubt that nuclear deterrence has prevented another major war in the cold war phase. I once read a text passage:

"Man is a hunter, a killer. We build great cities, and yet we live just like the wolf. The strongest of us dominate the weakest. We might call our leaders kings or generals, but the effect is the same. We create the wolf pack, and the very nature of the pack is to hunt and to kill. War, therefore, becomes inevitable."

While i don't see our civilization that negative, history has proven time after time, that peacefull societies sooner or later get attacked and destroyed by more aggressive ones. This happened regularly up to a man called Adolf Hitler, who started the last great war. Since ancient times the only defence against outside aggression has been a large military power of your own. There is an old roman saying: "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Vegetius, which means, that those who desire peace, have to prepare for war. So the best defense is to build a strong offense. On the other hand, once you have a strong offense, it is tempting to use it, and eventually it will be.

The nuclear thread stopped this cycle at least in the western world. There where still wars, Vietnam, Korea, etc., but the major powers always tried to avoid direct confrontations. Of course this is a false sense of security, as MAD relies on responsible people in positions of power. It might have saved millions of lives, but if anything goes wrong, billions will die. And there where quite a couple of times when it was almost over, the Cuban missile crisis being the most famous example. I don't know what it says about our civilisation that only the thread of total annihilation can keep us from each others throats, probably nothing good.

There was a time i thought that at least the so called developed, civilized countries had outgrown this stage, the need of nuclear deterrence to keep peace, but then the Iraq war happened. A war based on lies, of which i am sure that the people responsible knew from the start. Personally i think the main reason was to distract from the fact, that the government completely and utterly failed to prevent the destruction of the world trade center. And it even worked. Bush was reelected after all.

If you would ask me if we need nukes right now, i would say no. As long as our bellies are full and fuel is still affordable everyone is happy enough. But once, in another 20,30,40,50 years, when the ressources start seriously to run out, we will be right back at each others throats, if history has teached us anything. At that time the task of keeping peace might very well be again laid upon a large nuclear arsenal. Even if most large powers wanted peace and would throw all their military over board, it just takes one strong nation to take advantage of the others weakness. Its mind boggling what amount of ressources we waste day after day to keep our armies, espionage and surveillance running, but thats seemingly the price we have to pay for peace.

My hope is, that one day we will develop to a technological stage, where power and other ressources become cheap and plentiful, as i doubt that we will develop socially to a point where we can let our differences and military rest and all pull on one string for the good of mankind, any time soon.
« Last Edit: February 2, 2010, 08:31:36 AM by Lonewolf »


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
I will point out that India and Pakistan have gone to war (both had Nukes and both were Democracies at the time) thus making the argument that Democracies haven't gone to war and/or nuclear armed countries haven't gone to war a fallacy. Its just that both countries enter a phase where they cannot lord it over each other too much and/or push too deep into each other's territories.


It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline Gutstikk

  • Infinity Circuit | Title here to be dreaded 'til further notice. Rummy's Deepstriking Pylon
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Country: 00
  • I am a Wolf.
If you assume terrorist organizations wage war by using the resources at hand, preferrably the resources owned by the nation or entity they wish to act against, possessing nuclear weapons becomes very problematic.

Even when deployed in another nation, US missiles are considered the property of the US, and therefore if they fell into the wrong hands the US would be viewed as responsible for the lapse that permitted their capture.

Terrorist organizations have no need for a means of delivery, they merely need to detonate these sort of weapons on site to achieve their military goals.

There cannot actually be any nuclear retaliation without the extreme likelyhood of total global devastation. So possessing nuclear weapons in the next generation of warfare will actually be a liability rather than an asset, since most of the fighting will be over defending the missile sites and there'd be no real chance of using them if anything short of Pyrrhic victory is sought.

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Nations with nuclear weapons have not used them for deterrence.

 ???

America has used hers first in the past and thankfully never after.  ;)

For example, lets say terrorists get hold of a nuclear device (I stress this is an example) and detonate in a large American city, say New York. This would kill or effect millions and cause possibly billions of dollars in damage.

There's a new concept known as Sigger's Law when it comes to discussions of nuclear weapons and/or terrorism:
Quote
Sigger's Law: "As any discussion on terrorism grows longer, the probability of attributing terrorists with nuclear weapons (or similar destructive capabilities) approaches 1."
Corollary to Sigger's Law: "Once such an observation is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned terrorist possession of nuclear weapons has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
The theory of Mutally Assured Destruction is a curious one, an irrational situation caused by parties taken rational actions. It did help maintain the status quo and it could be said that keeping the cold war cold was best for everyone at the time. But that time is happily over and there is no big bad eastern bloc coming to kill everyone by destroying and corrupting free society by wanting people actually have to share and so on.

Getting rid of nuclear weapons is pretty much impossible but they could be scaled back a lot, no longer does the US nor Russia need vast stockpiles of weapons capable of wiping the other out. I don't think anyone would agree that pointing guns in your neighbour's face at all times is a sensible way to get along! :D

Its a bit of shame the US is being so irresponsible as to try and re-ignite the arms race with more anti-missile systems, particularly as they don't actually seem to be that successful at shooting missiles down, and seeing as its more likely any nuclear weapon used against the USA will arrive by shipping crate it seems the only reason to be insistent on using it is to get Russia's back up over it. In real terms all the defense systems seem to do is to move lots of tax payer's money away from anything genuninely useful and into the pockets of people who own weapons corperations... and are heavily involved in the politics; its defending some people but not the people the taxpayers are being told it is.
« Last Edit: February 2, 2010, 01:05:22 PM by iHymirl »
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Archaon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 739
  • Headshot, double kill, makes a man go *whistle* :D
TBH I think that everyone with nuclear weapons has them beacause they are worried about other peoples nuclear weapons. Last resort if you've got 20 nukes heading your way is to fire all of yours at the agressor. Mutually Assured Destruction. Not the best plan these days... ATM though they are useless in our hands. Our only enemies are guerilla fighters and nuking the afghan-pakistan border is proably not the best way to get rid of them. Using them against guerilla is a surefire way to make the country you're fighting in hate you. Also its kinda lose-lose because if terrorists get hold of even a single nuke you're in deep amphetamine parrot. They don't care about collateral damage. I think the only reason we have them is because we're afraid of the other superpowers. Fear and Mutually Assured Destruction.
[This sig contains whatever you imagine it to contain]

Offline Anecdotal Rabbit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I *LOVE* Anecdotes!
    • Just Writing Down These Thoughts
Quote from: Bill Cabot
It's the guy with one [nuke] I'm worried about.
Nuclear weapons are just a apex of current technology, saying yes or no to having Nuclear weapons would be if two thousand years ago Rome said no to the Testudo Formation because it has such a great military use to be an advantage.
The difference between the Nuclear weapons and Testudo Formation (Sorry I used that example) is that Nuclear Weapons are in multiple nations and they have uses outside of just military.  And while multiple nations have the Nuclear Weapons, it is the standstill; the Mutually Assured Destruction, pretty much.
As weapons themselves, Nukes are rather worthless, some random person nukes you and puts the blame on others and everyone kills each other over it.  Worthless and Stupid.  But the Nuclear technology, Nuclear Power, we would not have that ability of advancement without having first pushed for inventing the Atom Bomb.

Minus all of that, how can we say "Glass Them" if we did not have the ability to do so?
Random Thoughts At Random Times
Chaos Marines are just Marines with spikes - Easy to proxy, Easy to game.

Offline Blackveil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 900
  • Country: us
i think they do keep peace, as if a whole bunch of countries have nukes, then no one will dare to attack each other. that being said, however, if a war broke out, the nukes would be released, thus decimating entire countries even. it's almost like this: the stone stays balanced, but when it drops, it starts an avalanche.
2011 Grim Open GT Best General

Offline Anecdotal Rabbit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I *LOVE* Anecdotes!
    • Just Writing Down These Thoughts
i think they do keep peace, as if a whole bunch of countries have nukes, then no one will dare to attack each other. that being said, however, if a war broke out, the nukes would be released, thus decimating entire countries even. it's almost like this: the stone stays balanced, but when it drops, it starts an avalanche.

From what you are saying, Nuclear Weapons are just Time Bombs?  Once war breaks out, then boom?  War is inevitable, nothing that can be done about that, it will happen anyways; humans are war.  But then why have they not yet been released then?  Well, depends if you consider that we have been at war since then.  The Japanese was the end of the Second World War since the United States never moved against Russia (should have).  Then there was the Korean "Police Action", police are never involved with wars though, please (Warning, Sarcasm is present).  Then there was Vietnam... Failed!  And currently the twenty five (current me with the few years I am off by) year even more epic failure in the Middle East.
But then, when war actually does break out, then we have to worry about the "Nuclear Winter"?
Random Thoughts At Random Times
Chaos Marines are just Marines with spikes - Easy to proxy, Easy to game.

Offline Blackveil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 900
  • Country: us
i'm not really saying that. for example, take this scenario: russia fires nukes at USA. the USA would probably fire back, wouldn't they? then, due to the systems of alliances (what started WW1) countries would probably come to the aid of their allies, breaking out in a nuclear war. do you see what i'm saying? it's not if war happens, it's if someone fires the nuke.
2011 Grim Open GT Best General

 


Powered by EzPortal