I had an argument with a guy today who thinks that global disarmament of all nuclear weapons is not only feasible but desireable, just wanted to know what you guys think.

I am of the opinion that nuclear weapons are the strongest argument for world peace that mankind has ever produced. The history of mankind has been the history of prolonged and bloody conflict. Long periods of peace between the great powers has been a rare event indeed. The only material difference between the world situation now and the world situation in any other time in history is the dispersal of nuclear weapons throughout the globe, ie the ability of one country to easily nullify any plausable gains another could make by making war on it.

Nuclear disarmament should not be pursued while the sovereign state system exists. Because of the catastophic consequences which would result from a nuclear exchange, their presence provides an incentive for co-operation and compromise, making war less likely.

Of course, it could be argued that given the small chance of nuclear annihilation via misclaculation or accident, a world which sees periodic great power conflict would be preferable to one where the fate of humanity itself is continually subject to the roll of the political dice.

It's a tricky one. I would say that so far nuclear weapons have saved more lives than they have taken, and are likely what prevented the Cold War from being a hot war. If we continue to be lucky, they'll continue to be a good thing. OTOH, they could very well make everything go to shit.

In other words, what you just said.

By the way, if they ever invent something called a 'Von Neumann bomb', be very afraid.

'Von Neumann bomb'? Sounds pretty mean. What does it do?/How can I get one?

Such a device could potentially turn the entire earth into nanorobots. If you've ever played Deus Ex: Invisible War, it's like the intro of that.

Of course, if someone were to make such a bomb, they would presumably put some kind of replication/generation limit on the nanos.

yeah I'm with you guys, nuclear disarmament is undesirable while the soverign state system exists, and is probably unnecessary when it passes (and hey we might need to protect ourselfs from evil mutant space aliens or something :P :oob:)
although with America thinking about a strike first plan of action, it might not be such a great idea keeping them around...

Fixed.

Complete disarmament could never occur without the creation of a world government and the destruction of the sovereign 'state'. If however, one day the world becomes united under one government, we could do away with nuclear weapons, and reduce the amount of global GDP used on defence to the bare minumum necessary to keep a world goverment in power.

However, the only way that this could occur would be if one nation could conquer all others, something which is impossible while nuclear weapons exist in sufficient quantities. Catch-22.

It's hard to say whether nukes have been a good thing or not. But having so many in the hands of someone like Bush and co. worries the fuck out of me.

Bush an Co. ain't dumb enough to press the big button, otherwise they would have taken out the NKs and Iran by now. The main concern of nuclear weapons security is the possiblity of such armaments falling into the hands of terrorists, corruption and poverty could allow such transfers from the former Soviet republics or North Korea.

And of course, missing suitcase nukes.

It was rumored that bin Laden has a few of those purchased illegally suitcase nukes from an undisclosed former Soviet state. Suitcases are more suitable for spreading bio-agents.

The most apparent risk is from any party who can use a nuclear weapon without fear of retaliation.

America has been heavily researching tactical nuclear weapons since Bush got in the first time. Might not use full size nukes anytime soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if smaller tactical nuclear weapons are in use within a decade if America continues its aggressive path.

OMGOMGOMG i'm a demi-forum goon. I'd like to thank god, mom, auntie May, my manager doug and my dog.

Is it an automatic thing when you hit a certain number of posts that you become a goon?

The thing with that is, a clean mini nuke would have a comparable payload to a Daisy Cutter or some such conventional weapon, so I see no reason to be any more concerned about the use of such weapons as I would any other large bomb.

Miniature nukes are mainly used for penetrating storeys of underground bunkers, this is even less powerful than neutron weapons. "Tactical" may become an outdated term in the future for such munitions as their destructiveness cannot be classed along with neutron bombs or <20kT warheads.

I'm glad we're talkin' about nuclear weaponry here; let the good times roll!

I for one wouldn't have a problem with clean mini-nukes being used as long as they were filling roles previously held by tactical conventional weapons.

DU is definitely not clean.

I'm thinking of these. Perhaps not totally clean, but clean enough to use.

To me, it's the delievery methods that should be of greater importance. Like MIRVs or high speed TBMs.

The DF-15 for example, proves that there are more to nuclear missiles than ICBMs and ALCMs. The DF-15 is capable of a Mach 6 targetting speed (no current systems are in service for interception) and a CEP of 35-50m with GPS guidance. With the current demands, the Chinese inventory has one new DF-15 per week.

The American Pershings have an even higher speed (Mach 8), however most of such units have been disarmed by the 1990s.


Does the Oob like missiles? :oob:

As long as they're not aimed at me, sure.

I tend to view the nuking of Japan differently from most others. My theory is that the nukes have actually saved the Japs on a number of reasons:

Less casualties for both the Japanese and American forces, should their ground forces be used in the struggle for the country. Americans estimated that one million more of their troops would be killed if it wasn't for the A-bombs.

A quick surrender to the Americans by the Japs prevents a Soviet invasion from the north while the Americans are tied down in their own battles with the Japanese elsewhere. We know what kind of destructive element communism is to nationalistic spirit. Germany was separated into two because of communism, no matter how nationalistic their people were. The same will also apply to Japan, if the Soviets landed and created any form of a puppet government. Surely, most Japanese cannot imagine the horrors of two Japans.

Some Japanese revisionists argue that they haven't eaten rice for more than one year and it's unlikely that they will put up any resistance towards Allied advances, that's pure horseshit as witnessed by the sort of fighting seen in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. So what if there's no rice for food, Japanese soldiers were willing cannibals.

That almost appears like a drunken post. Are you arguing for nukes in the now, or explaining why it was a better option in 1945 (as opposed to Operation Olympic, an amphibious invasion on Japan)?

I was never drunk; nukes were always in and yes, the A-bomb saved the Japanese nation and people. This thread should be devoted to talking about anything nuke related.

Assuming the surrender couldn't have been obtained without an invasion or nuking, which is a sketchy issue, the nukes were the preferable option, especially when we consider that it was also the Americans way of saying "we're willing to use this shit, so watch it" to Stalin.

Funny enough, at that time the Americans only had two of such bombs and both were used on Japan, their final warning to the Japanese was that, if they don't surrender unconditionally, Tokyo will be next.

As for preventing an immediate flare up soon after WWII, American nuclear technology was the only thing preventing Stalin from forcing the Allies back to Dunkirk in 60 days. During the Cold War, NATO had this European plan for evacuation into Britain and then America, as the prevailing Soviet doctrine called for massive ground and air* assaults into Western Europe, should their quarrels come to war.



*This was extended to include the possibility of nuclear bombardment after the Khrushchev doctrine.

It's funny how perfect the timing was with the invention of nuclear weapons. Just in time to end world war 2, and just in time to prevent world war 3.

Some historians and political scientists argue that the Cold War was WWIII, it's just that it was never directly hot and it provided the backdrop for many ideological confrontations, most notably the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Well you know what I mean, this kind of world war 3:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will
be fought with sticks and stones."

So you could speak of a single 'cold' World War Three, just with 'hot' Korean and Vietnamese theaters?

It's an accurate description. The Napoleonic Wars almost counts as a world war as well.

Some of their arguments include that the Cold War involved such multitudes of nations that it was a global ideological conflict, it never went hot throughly but many nations did participate in Korea and Vietnam, albeit through sending aid and money to one party whose ideology has similarity to the supporting nations.

That's not a world war as only European nations were fighting. Nonetheless, European wars were frequent in the past.

Hence the 'almost', especially since there was also American and obviously Russian (which I guess you've counted under European) involvement too.

To what extent was the American involvement? It's a fact that the American were aided by French gunpowder during the war for their independence.

The War of 1812, though it's arguable as to whether or not this counts as American involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. It did mean the British had to fight in two places at once for a while.

And you had a lot of fighting overseas too. Arguably World War I was just a war of European powers, with minimal Japanese, American and Chinese involvement.

It was global in terms of the German sinking of an American passenger ship, plus the engagements in the Pacific to secure Germany's meagre colonies and the landings at Gallipoli. The Germans were going to get the Mexicans on their side with the Zimmermann Telegram.

In Europe, apart from White men, the trench also accomodated Chinese, Africans and Indias. Both Axis and Allied nations had to hire Chinese labor for their factories as most of their working men had gone to fight. Countries as far as Latin America took up allegiance, despite minimal and forgotten involvement. On the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese aided the British in sinking German shipping.

OK, then you cannot say that the Napoleanic Wars were not world wars.

Napoleonic Wars involved European nations only, although naval engagements could take place across the seas. No American forces had entered Europe at that time.

I agree with Adolf here. I say 'almost' with the Napoleonic Wars simply due to their scale and the size of the forces involved (well, at least the Russian and French armies were fucking big).

I must say, there are few pleasures better than discussing war history while listening to Orff's 'O Fortuna'.

How about going outside?