Are nuclear bombs too obsolete to ever be used again?

[Navaros]

I was watching President Ahmadinejad being interviewed the other week and he made a very poignant point. He pointed out how nuclear bombs are obsolete and having them is useless. Even if a nation has them, they cannot be used. He pointed out how the USA can't use the nuclear bomb to solve the Insurgency problem in Iraq. And Israel can't use the nuclear bomb to solve it's problems with Palestine. etc. etc.

It seems this line of thinking is accurate to reality.

Does it really make sense to worry about other nations getting nuclear bombs since they can't be used any more?

Will nuclear bombs ever be used again, or is President Ahmadinejad right that they are forever obsolete and the time in which they may be used has passed?

[Lemur]

Will nuclear bombs ever be used again, or is President Ahmadinejad right that they are forever obsolete and the time in which they may be used has passed?
I'm a dinner jacket wants them for the same reason North Korea wanted them -- they prevent world powers from invading. That's the main use of nukes right now.

It is foolish, however, to say that they are obsolete. Iran has a long and well-documented history of supplying, paying and arming terrorist/freedom fighter groups. (So do we, but we're more selective and we do it on a much smaller scale.) It's not hard to imagine someone in the Republican Guard handing a nuke to Hamas sometime in the next fifty years.

[macsen rufus]

As far as being used by nation states, probably yes. But not all potential players have the responsibilities or concerns of legitimate governments. I guess the corollary to that is: as they are largely unusable for states, why don't they stop making them to completely prevent the danger of them falling into other hands?

[Tribesman]

Iran has a long and well-documented history of supplying, paying and arming terrorist/freedom fighter groups. (So do we, but we're more selective and we do it on a much smaller scale.) It's not hard to imagine someone in the Republican Guard handing a nuke to Hamas sometime in the next fifty years.
Hold on Lemur , would it not be more correct to say that your history of this is longer , less selective and on a much larger scale .
Its not hard to imagine anti-aircraft missiles supplied by the US to the Mujahadeen being handed on to Al-Qaida in Africa and the Military dictatorship in Burma .

[Marshal Murat]

Isn't the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

[Lemur]

Hold on Lemur , would it not be more correct to say that your history of this is longer , less selective and on a much larger scale .
Its not hard to imagine anti-aircraft missiles supplied by the US to the Mujahadeen being handed on to Al-Qaida in Africa and the Military dictatorship in Burma .
And this relates to the subject of nukes how?

[Geoffrey S]

I find the highest point of naiveity the belief that nuclear bombs can't be used. They still exist, and as long as they exist they are a potential danger which needs to be taken into account, particularly in the governments which actually already have them. Not doing so is rather irresponsible.

[English assassin]

Even if a nation has them, they cannot be used. He pointed out how the USA can't use the nuclear bomb to solve the Insurgency problem in Iraq. And Israel can't use the nuclear bomb to solve it's problems with Palestine. etc. etc.

Just because a nuclear weapon cannot solve on particular problem, it does not mean it cannot solve others. If, for example, your problem is how to kill a million kuffar in one go, a nuclear weapon is rather a good answer.

Aslo as implied above, just because a nuclear weapon is not detonated does not mean it is not of use. In a world where someone may be asking themselves what would be the best way to kill a million kuffar, it may be handy for the kuffar in question to have the ability to vaporise the capital of whatever nation assists god's holy warriors in that aim.

[Husar]

Don't listen to EA, his thoughts are unclean like those of a Kuffar.

Like someone said, nukes prevent others from attacking a certain state because the nutters of a nuclear capable state will nuke everybody once they feel they're lost.

And probably what EA said.:sweatdrop:

[woad&fangs]

Could someone please explain to this stupid American what a Kuffar is.

[Lemur]

Kafir (or kāfir; plural Kuffar, kuffār) (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar) is an Arabic word meaning "denier" or "concealer." In a religious context it means a non-Muslim, and it is often used to mean "unbeliever" or "infidel". The noun kufr means "not believing in God" or "blasphemy, atheism." In Fiqh, the term amounts to the equivalent of Christian excommunication. The verb, "to declare someone a kafir" is takfir. For example, the novelist Salman Rushdie was declared a kafir in the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini.

[Tribesman]

And this relates to the subject of nukes how?

It relates to the incorrectness of what you wrote .
If you had wanted to say that Iran has a history of supporing and supplying terrorists thats fine , if you had wanted to add the rider that your country does it too thats fine , but don't try and say that it is more selective or on a smaller scale as that is bollox .

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

What you mean you "Can't use them"? What is going to happen, the U.N is going to send you a letter? :laugh4: :laugh4: (and it's true)



But Sersiouly, You really do need nukes. Mabye not a crap load, but enough to say "You really want to invade...?"

[Navaros]

What you mean you "Can't use them"?

I mean "can't use them" because the fear of being nuked back is so strong, that they will never actually be used again. If they could be used, chances are they would have been already in order to solve the problems listed in the OP, and others.

[HoreTore]

The main and only use of a nuke in a war, is to completely kill off populations. It has no use in regards to military targets, it exists purely to kill off and frighten civilians. Particularly in todays wars. What military targets could you use a nuke against? Enemy positions? Training camps? Ever heard of the phrase "shooting birds with cannons"?

Until we have a somewhat regular war again, there's no point in using nukes. They're too expensive and simply too destructive. Regular missiles does the job better, so shooting off a nuke is pointless.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What you mean you "Can't use them"? What is going to happen, the U.N is going to send you a letter? :laugh4: :laugh4: Well that. And a million civilians die. :idea2:

[Tribesman]

But Sersiouly, You really do need nukes.
Is that a dinnerjacket line ?

[lars573]

It is foolish, however, to say that they are obsolete. Iran has a long and well-documented history of supplying, paying and arming terrorist/freedom fighter groups. (So do we, but we're more selective and we do it on a much smaller scale.) It's not hard to imagine someone in the Republican Guard handing a nuke to Hamas sometime in the next fifty years.
Wouldn't a Hydrogen nuke obliterate Israel and Palestine in equal measures?

[Lord Winter]

But Sersiouly, You really do need nukes. Mabye not a crap load, but enough to say "You really want to invade...?"

But the thing is you'll get nuked into the ground to.

Better to idealy try to completly disarm. So we don't have the abbility to wipe out a 90% of the population in one go. At the very least we need to at least stop the spread to lessen the chance of two plus nations being turned into radoactive ash.


Note: I'm not naive enough to belive that the U.S. disarming will solve all our problems. It needs to be a unified and carefully supervised effort with the U.N. or whoever keeping a few nukes just to hold MAD over any nation with a nuke left.

[Samurai Waki]

At this point, there are so many nukes in the world that we could vaporize the world several times over. I liked the Proclamation of Nixon During the 70s that "The USA has enough weapons to destroy the USSR Eight Times Over" To which Brezhnev replied "I'm glad you feel the need to destroy the USSR eight times over, whereas we feel we can probably destroy the USA only one time over." :laugh4:

Anyways, Nukes have really been the great peace keeper between the powers and evils of the world. It may be an unsteady peace fraught with Espionage and treason behind the scenes, but as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a war between any nuclear bearing nations yet.

OTOH If every nation had them, and war is a certainty, you could well bet that they'd be used...much more often.

[Geoffrey S]

But the thing is you'll get nuked into the ground to.

Better to idealy try to completly disarm. So we don't have the abbility to wipe out a 90% of the population in one go. At the very least we need to at least stop the spread to lessen the chance of two plus nations being turned into radoactive ash.


Note: I'm not naive enough to belive that the U.S. disarming will solve all our problems. It needs to be a unified and carefully supervised effort with the U.N. or whoever keeping a few nukes just to hold MAD over any nation with a nuke left.
That's the thing I have a problem with. Rather than accepting that nuclear weapons exist and acting on that basis the usual consensus among the publc seems to be to want to turn back time to a moment when there weren't nuclear weapons rather than facing the fact that they do exist. That's dangerous, and doesn't take into account that the technology, whatever is done, is spreading and there are still situations in which leaders find their use accepteable (such as, retaliation for a WMD attack). As far as it seems only people in charge seem to fully realise this, though the choice of words in recent cases makes a worrying case for a declining sense of responsibility in owning enough nukes to flatten the modern world.

[Husar]

One problem with nukes is that those who have the best access to nuclear bunkers don't deserve to be in them. ~;)

And shooting birds with cannons sounds like a good idea to me, can hardly miss the swarm with your trusty 88mm Flak. :2thumbsup:

Well that and there are tactical nukes which would wipe out a whole enemy platoon or so and provide some open areas in a jungle for example. It's just too bad that using the open area is rather unhealthy usually.

Apart from that, like I said before, nuking someone else makes perfect sense for some nutter who is about to lose anyway, Hitler and Saddam already liked to destroy everything they couldn't have before loding their wars, now someone who wants the world and is about to lose in a conventional war would happily nuke half the world knowing that he'd never get it anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if espionage and sabotage might play a big role if two nuclear countries ever went to war. If one of them could manage to disable the other's nukes(which would most likely be very, very hard), they could beat them in a conventional war, things like lasers on satellites would make this rather easy since you won't really need sabotage, you just shred them shortly after launch. But then the other guy's ground laser shreds your own laser satellite etc. :laugh4:

Welcome to future wars.:sweatdrop:

[English assassin]

Could someone please explain to this stupid American what a Kuffar is.

Just to add to Lemur's scholarly definition above, it's what an islamist calls you just before he kills you. Rather like the KKK and the N word.

[macsen rufus]

...but as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a war between any nuclear bearing nations yet.


We've come pretty darned close to it with Pakistan and India and the whole "Kashmir question", to what extent there's a proxy war is anyone's guess, but I doubt it's all down to purely homegrown Kashmiri militants.

@Husar: espionage and sabotage will certainly play a part in any nuclear confrontation, but they have played a part in every war in history at least as far back as Kadesh...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Possession of a nuclear arsenal is a rational choice for a nation-state. It makes your state much more costly for another nation-state to invade and therefore serves as a deterrent. This is especially true for a nation-state who views itself as a likely opponent of the USA, since few nations would care to face the USA on "conventional" warfare terms.

Moreover, the USA has, historically, treated very differently those nations who have acquired this capability -- it is still membership in a somewhat exclusive and powerful "club."


However, anyone who believes that these weapons will somehow not be used is staking out an argumentative position for which there is very little historical support. Our species has used any and every weapon it has managed to develop. This is true, certainly, in the case of chemical weapons (despite the horror such weapons engendered during the '14-'18 war [Saddam's use of these is well documented, some argue that the continued use by the USA of White Phosphorous rounds in some circumstances is also an employment of chem weapons]. Bio-weapons have even been used as a terrorist weapon (apparently a home-grown US terrorist in our anthrax case, case yet unsolved) It may well be true that nation-states may be extremely reluctant to use nuclear weapons for fear of direct reprisal, but non-state actors may feel no such restraint.

Non-state actors will have difficulty acquiring these weapons. The resources to develop them may not be beyond a non-state actor, but pose real obstacles. It can be expected that such "players" will (and do) seek to acquire extent weapons of this type in order to make the big "splash" that is integral to the terrorist "message" and need for schrecklichkeit. Should such a non-state acquire a usable weapon, we would see them use this weapon to a) establish themselves as a state or b) make a big splash as EA suggests.


There are, by the way, any number of military targets for which a nuclear weapon is an ideal tool of destruction. Smaller weapons would be perfect for destroying/degrading large troop concentrations (exactly what our planners feared most from Saddam's chem weapons and scuds running up to Gulf 2); all but the most hardened command and control bunkers would succumb to a tactical nuclear weapon (especially combined with existing penetrator technology); even larger weapons would make an ideal tool for obliterating a carrier battle group. All such strikes could often be accomplished with comparatively little "collateral" damage to civilian targets or infrastructure and with relatively little fallout concerns. In short, discounting them as a military tool is short-sighted. They simply carry a high political cost if used.


Finally, given the documented "Götterdämmerung" mentality displayed by the Nazi regime as it was defeated, it is NOT too far-fetched to envisage some circumstances wherein a dying regime might seek to take a few of its enemies with it -- since their end is ordained, why not "spread the wealth." Or as Louis XIV phrased it "Apres-moi, le deluge."

[Husar]

@Husar: espionage and sabotage will certainly play a part in any nuclear confrontation, but they have played a part in every war in history at least as far back as Kadesh...
Yes, a similar case would be the sabotage of V2 missiles, but in this case it would have far worse consequences if only one of these weapons could be launched, so they'd have to do something about the severity and effectiveness of the sabotage. You can't got anymore and say "ah, it will miss us anyway if we won't succeed" If they realize they're being sabotaged they might just nuke your capital so the whole espionage deal needs to be done with much more caution and an almost 100% success rate, especially when dealing with nutters.


schrecklikheit [sic?]
Schrecklichkeit. :bow:

and just to make it complete

"gotterdamerung"
Götterdämmerung ~;)

I also think your points about destroying carrier battle groups etc are valid, but if some state nuked a US carrier battle group, they run into great danger of getting nuked themselves in return. For terrorists however, that would be a, from their perspective, amazing opportunity.

But then we better hope that never happens.

[Samurai Waki]

I don't know if anyone should hedge their bets that if a Nuclear Armed Islamic Terrorist Organization actually used a nuke, that the Victim wouldn't return Nuclear Hell Fire back on the State that harbored them, or where they were raised, or from the place which their religion originated. I'm almost positive in fact that if a Terrorist Organization were to use a Nuke on American Soil, that the exact response would be a nuke on the soil of their homes.

[AntiochusIII]

Wakizashi: But where is their home? Try the infamous Al-Qaeda, for example. Will you bomb the Sudan? Afghanistan? Iraq? Madrid? The USA (if they're here)? The Internet? How are you supposed to pinpoint the location most appropriate for Operation Righteous Molecular Vengeance to take place?

[Marshal Murat]

I have to say, after watching a documentary of nuclear weapons research from the 1940's and 50's, nuclear weapons are DANGEROUS, and also, unfortunately, quite useful.

One nuclear device in a harbor could blow the bottoms out any ships docked nearby.
Several nuclear devices across the coastline could effectively deter or destroy any attempted naval invasion.

Nuclear weapons are useful and quite dangerous.

[Samurai Waki]

Antiochus: Does it really matter where they strike? Somebody is going to push that button, and those nukes would go somewhere. Take Al Qaeda for example, I'm sure without a doubt in my mind, that if Al Qaeda struck the USA with a nuclear weapon, Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Baghdad, Tehran, et al probably wouldn't exist anymore. Its an equal response in equal or greater arms. Thats the deterrence.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Antiochus: Does it really matter where they strike? Somebody is going to push that button, and those nukes would go somewhere. Take Al Qaeda for example, I'm sure without a doubt in my mind, that if Al Qaeda struck the USA with a nuclear weapon, Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Baghdad, Tehran, et al probably wouldn't exist anymore. Its an equal response in equal or greater arms. Thats the deterrence.

The point is, deterrence rarely works against terrorist organisations.

Let's bring the question closer to home. There was a good deal of evidence that the Real IRA (a hardline splinter group of the Provos) would have been keen to get hold of a nuclear weapon and on obtaining it, would have delighted in using it against London.

The Real IRA were a tiny group of nut-jobs, quite capable of committing such an atrocity (they exploded the bomb in Omagh, for example). The people of the Republic of Ireland on the whole did not even support the terrorism of the Provisionals, let alone the extreme clowns.

But by your logic, the United Kingdom would have been quite within its rights to vaporise Dublin as punishment. Thereby killing many of my family - which would have been entirely just, seeing as how I fought terrorists as part of the British Army.

Oh, and Washington and Boston (among other places) would have had fiery death rained upon them for the direct support given to Irish terrorism and the harbouring of fugitives. And apparently this would have been just as well, despite the vast majority living there holding no candle for republicanism.

Does the application of your method appeal as much now it applies to western nations rather than those faceless muslim cities you listed?

[Samurai Waki]

It doesn't matter, there is no such thing as justice in reprisal. I don't know if the USA, the UK or whichever nuclear bearing country in the world would have the Wherewithal to recognize this at that point in time. I'm not disagreeing with you, but a Terrorist Organization could very easily cause a Nuclear War between two nations that had no involvement in the disaster to begin with. It would be chaos. The Fact of the Matter is, is that in your scenario I'm unsure if the UK at that point in time would be able to recognize the difference between an IRA Member and an Irish Citizen that just wanted to work and be left alone, they're both Irish, thus the same threat. And even if the governments led an investigation into the matter pending an attack, you could well bet that the Citizens of that Country would be clamoring for vengeance, and if you could put THAT down, then you have to worry about splintering factions within your own citizenry, government, and military that would form their own terrorist organizations, obtain a nuclear weapon and blow Dublin away. It would be like IRA vs Unionist on steroids.

I mean, imagine you were living in London on that day, and suddenly this happens. Then suddenly the City is... well, gone. You've lost your wife, your children, your family, friends, job, any reality of normalcy, and then you find out that this de facto terrorist organization, splintered off from the IRA is responsible. Whats you're response going to be, damn the IRA? ha-ha.

Or You could be right, and I'm just being paranoid.

Somehow, I feel like people aren't appreciating the vast destructive power of a Nuclear Weapon, these aren't sticks of dynamite, C4, Mortars, or whatever. These obliterate populations entirely. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are fractional in power compared to whats available today, I've seen lots of Photos taken by Marines at both cities, and my heart stops looking at the destructive power of those, imagine that on 50-70 times on that scale... its very, very scary.

[Watchman]

Personally, I'm willing to assume the people who actually have access to the somewhat elaborate activation systems of nuclear weapons are a wee bit too collected, professional and above all disciplined to go committing the kinds of stupidities the Man On The Street would doubtless engage in when under the influence of what Medieval law termed "first anger".

Also, I suspect anyone (sensible anyway) who lived through the Cold War had a decently keen appreciation of the potential mayhem of nukes. That was the nightmare of generations after all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My Father's preferred response to the 9-11-01 terror attacks would have been:

Multiple weapon counter-value strikes on Damascus, Baghdad, Kabul, Islamabad, Mogadishu, Tehran, Qom, and Tripoli (Libya). These strikes would have been launched no later than 2400 9-11-01. :shocked2:


My Father is not, fortunately:yes: , tasked with setting military policy for the USA.

[Samurai Waki]

Which is the kind of the point of my post above. 9/11/01 was ridiculously minute, in casualties, and damage. A Nuclear Weapon would have killed millions. Same Response? Probably not. But I'm not the expert here, so I don't know. What I'm pretty sure of though, is even if the US had gone about a nuclear 9/11 in a more collected fashion you can all bet that somehow the US "lost of a nuclear weapon" and somehow that weapon managed to make it into the hands of an extremist Nationalistic American Terrorist Organization or some such.

[Tribesman]

Slight problem there Waki , if they "lost" it and it ended up with those extremist nationalist terrorists , wouldn't those terrorists bomb Washington DC since they hate your government .

Which comes onto ....if one of your crazy "patriotic" terrorist groups decided to go for a nuclear version of the Oklahoma bombing which American cities should you suggest nuking in retaliation to obtain this detterant value you talk about ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Slight problem there Waki , if they "lost" it and it ended up with those extremist nationalist terrorists , wouldn't those terrorists bomb Washington DC since they hate your government .

Which comes onto ....if one of your crazy "patriotic" terrorist groups decided to go for a nuclear version of the Oklahoma bombing which American cities should you suggest nuking in retaliation to obtain this detterant value you talk about ?

Given that a disproportionate percentage of the "guests" on the Jerry Springer Show reside in West Virginia, I nominate Charlestown, WV as our designated self-immolation city. :devilish:

[Samurai Waki]

Seamus: :yes: :smash:

Tribesman: Well, I'm trying to play out a what-if scenario in my mind. And this to me just seems, well... logical. I mean look at the Nazi's, this isn't a new development in the human psyche, it didn't take long for the Nazis to depose of the former regime because the populace really and truly supported them for their views and stances, I think a similar situation would occur if a terrorist organization did carry out a nuclear attack, if the current regime did nothing to satiate the populations blood lust, than the population would depose of the current regime and put in something that suited. Maybe it would be something like current government in Iran, or the USSR, or the Nazis. But something very dreadful would occur. I don't have enough faith in the human race to say that in the event of a nuclear terrorist attack, that the major players of the world would say "lets disarm all nuclear weapons now" I just don't. The real victims, IE being the people of the same background, race, religion of that terrorist organization would be the ones that suffer the worst. It's just a horrible reality that this is the case in almost all genocides.