Have Nuclear Arms Effectively Ended Major Wars?

[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?

[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.

[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.