Have Nuclear Arms Effectively Ended Major Wars?

[PanzerJaeger]

And would universal adoption end small ones?

These are certainly not new questions, but they are ones that I do not believe have been discussed her before.

Did those fateful August 6 and 9, 1945 bombings bring an end to the cycle of major powers directly engaging each other in conflict that had lasted since the dawn of humanity? Could the current major powers cut virtually all 'hard' military spending without jeopardizing their respective national securities? And by 'hard', I mean the legacy institutions meant to engage other major powers such as the standard infantry and armored divisions, the naval battlegroups, and the air combat commands, not the special forces anti-terrorism/anti-piracy small scale stuff.

Further, if every nation maintained a nuclear arsenal, would there be no more wars?

[rory_20_uk]

The horrors of WW1 made it the "war to end all wars". That didn't happen.

If everyone did have nukes we'd just see wars fought via proxy e.g. Hezbollah where the country responsible might be guessed at, but not known - or indeed might be assisted by several players.

Both the Allies and the Axis had nerve gas in WW2 and could have caused horrific casualties if it had been used - but it wasn't even when Germany was clearly loosing. When Argentina invaded the Falklands the UK fought a conventional war rather than firing nukes, so again perhaps proportionality will also be a feature.

[CountArach]

Nope. A greater public awareness and a more personalised up-to-the-second news coverage of conflicts means that, as ill-informed by the news media as people may be in some situations, they are still going to hold some opinion. I seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in a western democracy would stand for the use of nuclear weapons by their government and I think that almost all government leaders know this. As such their effectiveness as a deterent is really a non-issue in my book, because everyone knows that the other guy isn't going to use them anyway. As for Russia (which can hardly be considered democratic), I just can't see them risking it.

[Vladimir]

It's impossible to say if major wars are over. The only way to know for sure is to have one. Nuclear weapons have made the stakes considerably higher so any major war could have dire consequences. All that does is make one less likely.

The world has moved past the industrial style wars but that doesn't mean the use of tactical nukes isn't possible. If everyone had nukes it would increase the chances of a small, ambitious belligerent country using them if they thought they could get away with it.

[rajpoot]

From Blackadder-

You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
It was bollocks.

Even if every nation, big and small had access to nuclear weapons, wars would still be fought, like today and no one would use the nukes.
Until some small beleaguered country cracks up and does. And then it'll be Mad Max/Fallout thereafter.

[Vladimir]

From Blackadder-


Even if every nation, big and small had access to nuclear weapons, wars would still be fought, like today and no one would use the nukes.
Until some small beleaguered country cracks up and does. And then it'll be Mad Max/Fallout thereafter.

Nice quote but relevant to, what, 100 years ago?

[rajpoot]

History often repeats itself.
To grow stronger to deter your opponent works, but the risk of someone striking first is always present. And then all that deterring strength causes all the more damage.

[Lemur]

[Fragony]

Keeps small wars small, without a nuclear deterent all-out conventional warfare would probably be more common. Probably saved the most of us a lot of misery

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nukes haven't been used since WW2, but we don't know how much luck or chance has been involved in that. So it's hard to say they stopped wars between major powers. I think there are many other factors involved anyway--the simple bombing cities capability is enough to make wars prohibitively expensive between major powers.

If everyone had them, some nutcase would use one.

Nope. A greater public awareness and a more personalised up-to-the-second news coverage of conflicts means that, as ill-informed by the news media as people may be in some situations, they are still going to hold some opinion. I seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in a western democracy would stand for the use of nuclear weapons by their government and I think that almost all government leaders know this. As such their effectiveness as a deterent is really a non-issue in my book, because everyone knows that the other guy isn't going to use them anyway. As for Russia (which can hardly be considered democratic), I just can't see them risking it.

I think people would quite easily support the use of nuclear weapons under the right circumstances.

[Veho Nex]

I think people would quite easily support the use of nuclear weapons under the right circumstances.

I assume those right circumstances include all out invasion of homeland and a defeated army. Sure they'd consent when it was looking down. I figure its the idea that you might be responsible for the destruction of the human race and possibly the world that keeps most countries that have nuclear arms from using them. I doubt we'd see any major use in Nuclear arms as a first response kind of deal. M.A.D. as awesome as it is will never see the light of day until the end of a massive land war was imminent.

If it was it definitely won't be against the civilian population but against an invading force before it has landed. Like if Israel and US teamed up to stop Irans nuclear program and Iran did have nuclear weapons already then I think that the service men and women aboard the ships or flying the planes are the ones who will it will be used against not the average Joe back in Mississippi.

[PanzerJaeger]

Both the Allies and the Axis had nerve gas in WW2 and could have caused horrific casualties if it had been used - but it wasn't even when Germany was clearly loosing.

This is a great point, but I would submit that the specter of nuclear arms is even more compelling than that of the chemical and biological weapons of the period. The costs are even higher. Has any nuclear armed nation challenged the territorial integrity of another nuclear armed nation? Their proxy fights have been pushed into more and more desolate regions as an ever growing list of nations has fallen under a nuclear umbrella (either their own, or that of an ally).

[Whacker]

This is a great point, but I would submit that the specter of nuclear arms is even more compelling than that of the chemical and biological weapons of the period. The costs are even higher. Has any nuclear armed nation challenged the territorial integrity of another nuclear armed nation? Their proxy fights have been pushed into more and more desolate regions as an ever growing list of nations has fallen under a nuclear umbrella (either their own, or that of an ally).

India and Pakistan have been at each other's throats for decades, and I believe some of the major conflicts carried into the years when both were nuclear capable.

I'm also pretty sure Israel had nukes during several of it's major conflicts in the preceding decades. Could be wrong on this one, though.

Afghanistan didn't have nukes when it was at war with Russia. That said, Russia didn't decide to resort to nukes when it was essentially a given that they had "lost". Not that the use of nukes would have been wise at all, seeing how they were fighting a decentralized, guerrilla force.

Someone mentioned Britain and the Falklands crisis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Difficult to say. The Cold War I feel is going to be looked at as a special case where the MAD doctrine did hold strong. When you start applying the MAD doctrine to an increasing number of cultures, types of governments, unforeseen consequences will occur.

If the org had already implemented thanking, I would give Lemur's post a thank since Fallout is my favorite video game series.

But back to the subject, we have already seen nuclear armed countries engage in conflicts. Nuclear weapons are ultimately a last resort, and used as such. The Cold War had such high stakes that a bad misstep would have the world fall into the hands of the enemy. Therefore, use of nuclear weapons was always seemed to be an option, and thus everyone tip toed around a lot more carefully. Today, the stakes are not as high for smaller countries, and there is more leeway to poke and prod than the US-USSR relationship had. Two nuclear countries could willingly go to war under the guise of taking small bites of land or resources away from the enemy. Not enough to justify the use of nuclear war, but enough to justify the conventional war in the first place. Unfortunately, what might be considered just another bite by one power, might be considered the straw that breaks the camels back for the victim.

Also we must consider that different countries have different interpretations of what "the world" might be to them. India and Pakistan have been fighting over a relatively small region (if I remember correctly, I forget the name), now if one country actually did mange to take over and secure the region from the other, we might think to ourselves nothing terrible would come of it, because the states of India and Pakistan itself would not be threatened, but one of those two countries might see the situation differently. National pride is dangerous in a nuclear power. This line of reasoning also opens up legitimate questions about Islamic democracies and dictatorships controlling such weapons.

Ultimately, we must aware that not everyone will partake in the utilitarian calculus and game theory of the Cold War and might resort to more base and false reasoning.

[PanzerJaeger]

India and Pakistan have been at each other's throats for decades, and I believe some of the major conflicts carried into the years when both were nuclear capable.

This is technically an exception to the rule, but it was a small scale regional conflict and not a major war. Nuclear arsenals on both sides assured that it would remain that way.

I'm also pretty sure Israel had nukes during several of it's major conflicts in the preceding decades. Could be wrong on this one, though.

None of its opponents did, though.

Afghanistan didn't have nukes when it was at war with Russia. That said, Russia didn't decide to resort to nukes when it was essentially a given that they had "lost". Not that the use of nukes would have been wise at all, seeing how they were fighting a decentralized, guerrilla force.

Someone mentioned Britain and the Falklands crisis.

Again, these are examples of nuclear nations engaging non-nuclear ones. My point is that, had, say, Afghanistan had nuclear weapons, would the USSR have invaded?

Well, to play devil's advocate here, the India vs. Pakistan wars actually play into Panzer's point. The last major conflict was a stalemate on the ground, but it was obvious that India would win if they pushed it into a war of attrition. The fact that Pakistan came to the negotiating table rather than resort to Nuclear arms despite their Army being bettered, their Air Force being grounded, and parts of their territory being held by the enemy, is perhaps a very compelling example of the threat of Nuclear war preventing a major escalation into full-blown war of attrition.

I'm not 100% certain that Pakistan had nukes during the last major war, however. Someone needs to swoop in here and correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, I personally believe it is an isolated case--merely playing devil's advocate.

The Kargil War was initiated by Pakistan in '99, a year after the nation went nuclear. That fact ensured from the outset that it would not be a major war, which reinforces my point. Pakistan miscalculated by assuming their nuclear arsenal would dissuade India from pushing back against their incursion, but both sides knew that the war would not progress beyond the region. It was nothing like the major wars of '65 and '71.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And would universal adoption end small ones?

These are certainly not new questions, but they are ones that I do not believe have been discussed her before.

Did those fateful August 6 and 9, 1945 bombings bring an end to the cycle of major powers directly engaging each other in conflict that had lasted since the dawn of humanity? Could the current major powers cut virtually all 'hard' military spending without jeopardizing their respective national securities? And by 'hard', I mean the legacy institutions meant to engage other major powers such as the standard infantry and armored divisions, the naval battlegroups, and the air combat commands, not the special forces anti-terrorism/anti-piracy small scale stuff.

Further, if every nation maintained a nuclear arsenal, would there be no more wars?

Mad requires A: coherent power blocks , A.K.A. "the Free World" and "The Commies" and B: enought Nukes to destroy the world.

Twenty years ago both were a given, now not so much.

There's also an argument that we'd be better off with more wars and no nukes - at the end of the day though anyone who uses nukes destroys the target, which defeats the point of war.

[Kralizec]

Obviously M.A.D. prevented the USA and the Soviet Union from engaging in a direct war with eachother. But in those days there was room and opportunity to indirectly fight eachother by engaging the proxies of your respective enemy. Supposing that everyone had nukes, then I could see two scenarios:

A) nobody attacks anyone for a considerable time. This could lead to permanent peace between states. Or it could lead to tensions bottling up, culminating in rare, but extremely destructive wars that demolish entire nations when they do occur.

B) Some new rules of war, by treaty or informal, come into being. Nations will essentially limit themselves to beating the opponents armed forces in selective engagements with conventional forces; after which they cease their operations and wait for the opponent to gracefully accept the terms of peace, which the loser can accept without being entirely degraced, or something like that. But that would depend on all 193 countries "playing by the rules".


I'm not so well informed about Pakistan and India, but my general impression was (and PanzerJaeger's posts seem to confirm this) that they're reluctant to engage eachoter on any large scale now that they're both equiped with these weapons. Who knows what could and would happen if Pakistan suddenly collapses in anarchy - I don't know anything about command structures surrounding nuclear weapons, let alone about Pakistan in particular, so I won't comment on that.

[rajpoot]

Who knows what could and would happen if Pakistan suddenly collapses in anarchy - I don't know anything about command structures surrounding nuclear weapons, let alone about Pakistan in particular, so I won't comment on that.

This.
Like I said before everyone knows that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used aside from deterring others from attacking oneself. But what if they happen to be used in any case?
Hasn't everyone in USA been worried about what will happen if Pakistan's nuclear arsenal fell into the hands of extremists?

I do agree that the Kargil War was relatively smaller than the previous two wars, and the nuclear arsenal of both the states contributed in keeping it thus, to some extent; But nonetheless the risk of what can happen if nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands should be enough reason to not wish that every state has them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Have Nuclear Arms Effectively Ended Major Wars?

Well we can all agree that the answer here is no as we have had war since nuclear arms have been invented and diseminated.

And would universal adoption end small ones?

No universal adoption would not end small wars.

The reason is that the use or lack of use of nuclear weapons is down to a carefull balancing by either power on it's ability to win or prevent defeat. If everyone has nukes then it depends on who you are allied with do you and all you allies have more nukes than you enemies. If you do not have more nukes than you enemy then you need to be sure you enemies will not attack, if you cant be sure then you may need to attack in order to show you would attack your enemies allies if they respond.

I effect you need to make you enemy understand you will respond, if they do not understand then the likelyhood of miscalculation increases.

Also the less nuclear weapons involved the more likely there use, if we all have only have 10 nukes then even a small countries might think they can gain advantage from there use.

The calculation works like this

The more nukes you have the greater the chance of use.

The less nukes you have the greater the chance of use.

Did those fateful August 6 and 9, 1945 bombings bring an end to the cycle of major powers directly engaging each other in conflict that had lasted since the dawn of humanity? Could the current major powers cut virtually all 'hard' military spending without jeopardizing their respective national securities? And by 'hard', I mean the legacy institutions meant to engage other major powers such as the standard infantry and armored divisions, the naval battlegroups, and the air combat commands, not the special forces anti-terrorism/anti-piracy small scale stuff.

Possibly but I doubt it you still need to hold the ground even after you fire nukes that requires armies.

Further, if every nation maintained a nuclear arsenal, would there be no more wars?

No civil wars can and still do escalate how do you use a nuke on you own country, you could but how useful would it be.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well we can all agree that the answer here is no as we have had war since nuclear arms have been invented and diseminated.

But have we seen a major war? Or a war between two nuclear powers?

No universal adoption would not end small wars.

The reason is that the use or lack of use of nuclear weapons is down to a carefull balancing by either power on it's ability to win or prevent defeat. If everyone has nukes then it depends on who you are allied with do you and all you allies have more nukes than you enemies. If you do not have more nukes than you enemy then you need to be sure you enemies will not attack, if you cant be sure then you may need to attack in order to show you would attack your enemies allies if they respond.

I effect you need to make you enemy understand you will respond, if they do not understand then the likelyhood of miscalculation increases.

Also the less nuclear weapons involved the more likely there use, if we all have only have 10 nukes then even a small countries might think they can gain advantage from there use.

The calculation works like this

The more nukes you have the greater the chance of use.

The less nukes you have the greater the chance of use.

I don't quite understand. My point was that if even smaller nations maintained a nuclear arsenal, the cost/benefit analysis for intervention by major powers would be highly skewed towards non-intervention. Look at the consternation over Iran, the massive push to attack and attack as soon as possible. The implicit understanding in the West is that an attack on the country after it goes nuclear will be off the table. As more and more nations go nuclear, there will be fewer places where intervention will make sense.

No civil wars can and still do escalate how do you use a nuke on you own country, you could but how useful would it be.

I should have specified that I meant wars between states.

[spankythehippo]

Nuclear deterrence will not "deter" anyone. There will be some nut job out there who will use their nukes. You only need one bad cook to spoil the broth. Instead of giving everyone nukes, why not take all of them away and destroy them? , it's not that hard to be without them.

There is only one scenario I can think of where getting rid of all the nukes would be a bad idea. It's the reason why there is still some a smallpox sample being kept, even though it is practically extinct. What if someone else has it? In the case of nukes, no one knows what North Korea have. Then again, North Korea could not have nukes at all. But I don't think every country will agree to a No-Nuclear-Arms treaty, in particular the U.S. of A.

[Kagemusha]

Nuclear deterrence will not "deter" anyone. There will be some nut job out there who will use their nukes. You only need one bad cook to spoil the broth. Instead of giving everyone nukes, why not take all of them away and destroy them? , it's not that hard to be without them.

There is only one scenario I can think of where getting rid of all the nukes would be a bad idea. It's the reason why there is still some a smallpox sample being kept, even though it is practically extinct. What if someone else has it? In the case of nukes, no one knows what North Korea have. Then again, North Korea could not have nukes at all. But I don't think every country will agree to a No-Nuclear-Arms treaty, in particular the U.S. of A.

Without Nukes we would have witnessed already atleast one World War between Soviet Union and USA.

[spankythehippo]

Without Nukes we would have witnessed already atleast one World War between Soviet Union and USA.

You can't change history, can you? I'm not saying that they should have never had nukes in the first place. What are the disadvantages of getting rid of them now? None that I can think of. Sure, nukes can instill fear in people, but that questions the root problem. Is there a need for war?

[PanzerJaeger]

Nuclear deterrence will not "deter" anyone. There will be some nut job out there who will use their nukes. You only need one bad cook to spoil the broth.

Can you name a state or world leader that you believe would use nuclear weapons knowing the consequences?

[spankythehippo]

Can you name a state or world leader that you believe would use nuclear weapons knowing the consequences?

I stress the word "nut job".

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't quite understand. My point was that if even smaller nations maintained a nuclear arsenal, the cost/benefit analysis for intervention by major powers would be highly skewed towards non-intervention. Look at the consternation over Iran, the massive push to attack and attack as soon as possible. The implicit understanding in the West is that an attack on the country after it goes nuclear will be off the table. As more and more nations go nuclear, there will be fewer places where intervention will make sense.

Think on it this way if they were only what 193 nukes in the world ie one for each country it would not stop war between them.

Remember MAD only works when your enemy understands your intentions, I move a piece you move a piece as long as both sides understand that the other has not crossed any line of no return the game will continue in stalemate.

Now imagine every country has nukes the problem would be that the variables are too great to fully map beforehand.

[Kagemusha]

You can't change history, can you? I'm not saying that they should have never had nukes in the first place. What are the disadvantages of getting rid of them now? None that I can think of. Sure, nukes can instill fear in people, but that questions the root problem. Is there a need for war?

Getting rid of nukes will only lower the threshold of large scale conventional warfare. Nukes are a fact and in that sense you are right.You cant turn back the clock to the time prior of them.