A Nuclear World

[Dude_Doc]

So, since we have this big stir in international politics with Iran wanting to create their own nuclear fuel while the rest of the world thinks they will develop nuclear weapons.

However, this is not what the topic is about. By having nuclear weapons a state can deter any attack basically by just having nuclear weapons. So, in these times, should a country have their own nukes if they feel threatened?

(Hey, you wanted something controversial, duh...)

[Acriku]

Is any country competent to hold such levels of potential destruction? People say America is.

Are they sure?

[Edric O]

It all depends on whether you believe MAD works. In any case, using nukes = suicide. So what kind of government should not have nukes under any circumstance? One that has a high chance of being suicidal...

If only one country has nukes, that country can dominate the rest of the world. If ALL countries have nukes, the risk of a nuclear exchange is extremely high. The complete banning of nuclear weapons is just not realistically possible. So what is the best realistic option? A small number of countries with nukes. What countries should those be? Well, frankly, that depends on what countries you like... I think Sweden should have nukes. :)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, if Sweden, then also Poland...if Poland then Germany, and if those then Czechs and we should have it as well...

But anyway, there is a great difference between various nuclear weapons. Tactical 10 kt bomb is easier to mount on short-range missiles, but doesn't cause that much damage, that's why it is ment to be used only on a battlefield, ie against fleets or airforce bases. In WW2, USA was bluffing much, because they had only about 5-6 such bombs. Countries like Israel or Iran are yet able to construct only such smaller weapons. Strategic weapons, which carry fusion warheads of megatones power (with a potential, which fits into MAD scheme), would need much more facilities and resources. Local nuclear conflict, be it between Israel and Iran, Pakistan and India, or perhaps even North Korea and Japan, wouldn't cause universal destruction, nor it won't "wipe" the states "off map", but it will certainly destabilize those regions enough. But still, it won't be a reason for the five countries, armed with thermonuclear weapons, to use these.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Iran is crazy.. their leader said that the holocaust never happened, and that when they develop nukes they are going to nuke Israel first.  Boy that sounds like a prime candidate for another addition to the nuclear society.  I hate to say it but G. Bush was right about that axis of evil.  Actually... i didnt really hate saying that.

[Dunenewt]

In WW2, USA was bluffing much, because they had only about 5-6 such bombs.

USA never said they had many atomic bombs in WW2.

[GUNWOUNDS]

After the U.S. dropped the first bomb they told Japan to surrender because they had "more" where that came from.  This obviously means they were stating they had a sufficient nuclear arsenal to destroy Japan.  What constitutes "many"?

[Dude_Doc]

Is any country competent to hold such levels of potential destruction? People say America is.

I'd say any country that is not threatened and have a strong economy is not a danger. For example, if Sweden builds nukes the US won't have anything to fear for - we share the same market economy, we don't have another or "hostile" ideology against the US. Iran and North Korea have other views, thus they are a threat - thus, I believe, they are pictured as maniacs and trigger-happy. But they are smart enough not to use nukes since, as stated, it would spell the end for them.

If ALL countries have nukes, the risk of a nuclear exchange is extremely high.

Yes - but if key countries in every continent/"world" has an amount of them, then that gives them the power to develop in their own way, without risking to be influenced by the one country with all the nukes.

Iran is crazy.. their leader said that the holocaust never happened, and that when they develop nukes they are going to nuke Israel first.

But it wasn't Iran's leader that said so. Iran's true leader is the Ayatollah (Supreme Leader), and only he has the power to declare war and peace. The president, Ahmadinejad (sp?), on the other hand, has full power to say and propagate whatever he wants to the public. He doesn't even have the power to send scouts neighbouring Iraq. Would they fire nukes at Israel if they had them? No - because that would be the end of Iran, they know very well that the US would invade Iran. There is, though, a chance that Iran is trying to get Israel to "confirm" that they have nuclear weapons - and what would the world say if they found out what Israel have been doing all this time while Iran seems to be the big problem?

I hate to say it but G. Bush was right about that axis of evil.

But it is just because of this statement Iran and North Korea got into the nuclear business in the first place. China tortures hundreds of people each year, they execute an unknown amount of people, free speach and free ideas are supressed by the Chinese state, still the US are good business partners with them. Uzbekistan isn't better, but the Uzbek president has a relationship with Bush. Aren't they "evil" too? The true axis of evil is a much greater number, and I can't help but to put the US into that list since it cooperates with those states.

[Acriku]

I chose the word 'competent' because that's a lot different than 'trustworthy'. I meant it to say, is America competent enough to have nuclear weapons? Under the current administration, I'd say no.

[Anathema]

It all depends on whether you believe MAD works. In any case, using nukes = suicide. So what kind of government should not have nukes under any circumstance? One that has a high chance of being suicidal...

If only one country has nukes, that country can dominate the rest of the world. If ALL countries have nukes, the risk of a nuclear exchange is extremely high. The complete banning of nuclear weapons is just not realistically possible. So what is the best realistic option? A small number of countries with nukes. What countries should those be? Well, frankly, that depends on what countries you like... I think Sweden should have nukes. :)

Actually, Sweden did use to have a nuclear program tucked away in case they would ever need it.

The Cold War is over, no nead for an arsenal big enough to destroy your opponent several times over. Nothing good can come of it, and it's damn expensive to mantain such an arsenal. Why is France spending 10% of her military budget mantaining 300+ nuclear missiles when they can't even ballance their budgets? If you can destroy a nations' capital and port cities, what additional detterence is there in being able to saturate their countryside with atomics? A few smaller nukes with advanced carriers to destroy a nations' key industrial centres is deterrence enough, and it reduces the chance for apocalypse like scenarios.

[Caid Ivik]

It's not that about missiles, Anathema. You can have an ICBM (or a submarine with cruise missile; in effectu same, just a sub costs more) suitable to hit anything anywhere, and arm it with a 10-20 kt fissional warhead. Enough to destroy ie center of Teheran, but not for the whole city. Also, as these weapons have never been used in a real combat (where you sometimes have to react quickly, so many factors may cause some or all warheads to fail or miss its target), it may hit, but not fully disable the target country. That's why they arm thermonuclears into such weapons...

[Anathema]

Cool video

10-20 kt? Pffff! The USA's newest ICBMs can carry up to 300 kilotons worth.

Hydrogen bombs carry thermonuclear bombs inside to set off the fission reaction.

[Caid Ivik]

Fusion bombs are worth megatons, not few hundred kilotons... With 10-20 kt I mean surely the lesser ones. Such available to Iran or Israel right now, to make a comparision.

[Dante]

To deny any one country the ability to produce nuclear weapons is an act of hypocricy. After all, if trigger-happy madmen in the West have the ability to pulverise people that they don't like, why shouldn't trigger-happy madmen in the East? Had a similar weapon existed a few hundred years ago, and had Britain forbidden the colonies to produce it or even be involved with it, then you can be sure that America would have fiercely resented the dogmatic orders of a foreign power with little or no understanding of the county's needs.

Ideally, nobody would have nuclear weapons. Their impact on the planet is too severe, really. But that is no longer an option, and so now everybody must have them. Otherwise those with nuclear weapons will bully those without, and that can only end in tears.

[GUNWOUNDS]

but people in the middle east are more prone to suicide and madness.... so middle east madmen will result in a total annihilation scenario.  Whereas the madmen in the west will only bully people around... not destroy teh entire world.

Therefore it is more logical to forbid eastern madmen from having nukes and allow the western madmen to have nukes.  Especially since the eastern people are more primitive.  Look at the palestinians... they are generations behind the west... they obviously dont have the capacity to hold weapons.. and neither do other primitive countries such as sudan, iran, iraq, france, india, or pakistan.

[Dante]

Having nukes leads to one of two scenarios. Launching nukes, and not launching nukes. If the latter, then they are a drain on funds and should be scrapped. If the former, then bullying the world becomes destroying the world. In either case, there is no justification in allowing some to develop nukes and denying the right to others. Besides which, why should we intervene? Like I said, America would loathe it if another country told them what to do now, as would Britain, France, Germany, or any other you care to name. Other countries have a right to pursue their own interests without meddling from outer powers, who can always cease trade if they feel threatened. Nobody's getting far without money from another country.

[Anathema]

Fusion bombs are worth megatons, not few hundred kilotons... With 10-20 kt I mean surely the lesser ones. Such available to Iran or Israel right now, to make a comparision.

I stand corrected. However you did prove my point that it is possible to completely anihilate entire cities with ICBM missiles. In fact they probably could rip apart the entire Netherlands (if the explosion doesn't, the flood caused by the dike breaches certainly will)

I still don't see what point you were trying to make against my original statement.

[Anathema]

they obviously dont have the capacity to hold weapons.. and neither do other primitive countries such as sudan, iran, iraq, france, india, or pakistan.

France? WTF? You're kidding right?

And it's a bit late to do anything about India or Pakistan. Plus I would say that India is worthy enough to own nukes, especially when compared to Russia or China.

[GUNWOUNDS]

oops how did france get in there? .... silly keyboard. 

yes you're right tho... perhaps india is worthy.... they are a hard-working people and their food tastes pretty good.  Perhaps they should live.

[Anathema]

That's the spirit. Now grab a rifle and go shoot some communists or muslims- preferably people who are both.

*humms Freedom isn't Free*

[Barbarossa]

As for who should or should not have Nukes. Those who have said that we (the U.S) are superior in our deservance to posess Nucular weapons, I only have one thing to say:

Atomic weapons dropped on an Enemy by the U.S.A: Two.

Atomic weapons dropped on an Enemy by the rest of the World: Zero.

Do take that into consideration when speaking of Madmen and the such.

[GUNWOUNDS]

yea but nuking the japs saved more lives.... so that arguement about the US using nukes is  irrelevant.... i mean we are talking about a World War (WW II) for fark sakes.  I am sure nukes will be used in the next world war (WW III). only reason they werent used in WW I is cuz they didnt exist.

[Barbarossa]

It has never actually been proven that as many lives would have been saved as they claimed. That was more of an example of the Military coming up with an excuse for trying out their new toy, than anything else,IMO.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It doesnt need to be "proven"... common sense tells you that they estimated that millions of americans and millions more japanese would die in a full scale ground invasion.  Sorta like the Doomsday assault you saw in Saving private Ryan.

Obviously nuking two cities was alot less casualties since it was a controlled attack... its not even a debate. A full scale invasion would have been a hamburger-fest.

[Barbarossa]

They estimated that millions would die. True, but the Gov't also likes to exaggerate things like that. For example, they also happened to estimate the capability of Hussein's Iraq to produce WMDs as being pretty good- No, they were positive there were WMDs. Look at how THAT turned out.  :P