Page 1 of 2
#3
i hope they will stay in their current places and not get launched at anyone.

nuclear weapons also act as deterrents to nuking another country - for example in the cold war.
Does anyone remember laughter?

Manuel, please try to understand before one of us DIES.

my gear:

Gibson LP Standard
Epiphone SG
Classical guitar
Peavey ValveKing 112
Marshall MG15
BOSS ME-50
#6
Quote by chillrock
i hope they will stay in their current places and not get launched at anyone.

nuclear weapons also act as deterrents to nuking another country - for example in the cold war.


Mutually Assured Distruction was the worste diplomatic strategy ever. you can not feasiblty say it was a good idea. It worked in defeating the Soviet Union, yes, but any historian will tell you it was the dumbest thing we could have done.

EDIT: I do IB History
#7
oh god! not korea!

just don't give nuclear to iran because you'll be kicking yourself from the moment you do.
Stand up and cheer if you like SimCity

Play Up Pompey, Pompey Play Up
THE WiLDHEARTS

Quote by goest
I'm going to take this opportunity to initiate my campaign to replace the phrase "Taking a shit" with "Busting a grumpy."
#8
If stockpiling nuclear arms helped win the cold war I doubt you can say it was the "dumbest" thing we could have done.
#9
We should really get rid of them. We'll never use them because it's Mutually Assured Destruction, but no-one will get rid of them until everyone else gets rid of them. It's stupid and childish. I guess if we all have nukes though, people won't fuck with each other.
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#10
Quote by the spiker
If stockpiling nuclear arms helped win the cold war I doubt you can say it was the "dumbest" thing we could have done.
You mean stopped it from ever breaking out.
Anyways, the arms race was one of the thing that turned the USSR into what it was, which was a country that could produce thousands of top notch tanks in a week, but not a single acceptable car. The world would've been a better place without the ICBM's.
Quote by sSyLc
Looking for a bj from an unsuspecting animal eh?
Member of The True Eccentric Tea Drinking Appreciation Preservation Society
Quote by denizenz
I came, I saw, I cleaned it up.
Last edited by Grönis at May 31, 2008,
#11
Quote by break-me-in
We should really get rid of them. We'll never use them because it's Mutually Assured Destruction, but no-one will get rid of them until everyone else gets rid of them. It's stupid and childish. I guess if we all have nukes though, people won't fuck with each other.

Hey, if it keeps the peace...
#12
Quote by the spiker
Hey, if it keeps the peace...
Well it kept peace between the countries who actually had them... But there's more to the world than those countries.
Quote by sSyLc
Looking for a bj from an unsuspecting animal eh?
Member of The True Eccentric Tea Drinking Appreciation Preservation Society
Quote by denizenz
I came, I saw, I cleaned it up.
#14
Quote by Grönis
Well it kept peace between the countries who actually had them... But there's more to the world than those countries.


Yes, but if you consider that many smaller, unarmed countries have treaties and alliances with larger ones to protect them...
I play by my own rules. And I have one rule; There are no rules... but if there are, they're there to be broken. Even this one.


Confused? Good.

Quote by CrucialGutchman
Sigs are wastes of my precious screen space.

^ Irony

Quote by RevaM1ssP1ss
LET ME HUMP YOU DAMMIT
#15
Quote by *Juno*
cos they wont work

I don't understand so maybe you can enlighten me. Many nations used to test weapons in the atmosphere and then underground. They would assess the damage and whatever else. Why not nuke the moon and asses the damage through a telescope? Why not nuke Mars where there is nothing but rocks and dust? Will not have to worry about radiation. Besides, ICBMs are nothing but rockets and certainly break free of our atmosphere. We can claim it's practice for that Earth-shattering asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
#16
What place do you think nuclear weapons have, or should have in the 21st century?

Discuss nukes here!


If we were to stick to our principals I think we should get rid of Nukes, personally I think they have no place in modern warfare.I still think some of the major world powers will hold on to them regardless though.
multicolour random messge!

FAC 13
"The hacienda must be rebuilt"
#17
Quote by Zakkmann
Mutually Assured Distruction was the worste diplomatic strategy ever. you can not feasiblty say it was a good idea. It worked in defeating the Soviet Union, yes, but any historian will tell you it was the dumbest thing we could have done.

EDIT: I do IB History


Yes, however this was a lot more complicated than that. MAD started when the US thought the USSR had a lot more weapons than they had, and as a result all of their launching facilities were at risk. What else could they do, in their own little paranoid state of mind, than increase their numbers to match their grossly overestimated figures?

In MAD, or even in nuclear dissuasion as a whole, as soon as the enemy's got more than you and can target all your launch sites, you're at risk. Hence all the late emphasis on submarine launched weapons. No one knows where they are.

No one ever said it was good.

Reagan got offered by Gorbatchev in the Rekjavik conference to gert rid of ALL their nukes. Reagan refused. Great man Reagan...
#18
Quote by Pott

In MAD, or even in nuclear dissuasion as a whole, as soon as the enemy's got more than you and can target all your launch sites, you're at risk. Hence all the late emphasis on submarine launched weapons. No one knows where they are.


This is not true for MAD. I does not matter how many nukes you have once you reach a critical level. You must remember that with all the satellite imagery and whatever other means of detection there is, once a nuke is launched, the enemy will know about it.

It typically takes 30 mins for a nuke to go from Russia to the USA. That is plenty of time for you to launch a counter attack.

Whilst your point on nuclear submarines is valid, a sub can't simply creep up to the coast line and fire. The commander of the sub needs his official launch orders, and typically has to surface to get them. This leaves the sub exposed to all sorts of sonar, especially in calmer conditions. Ultimately, I'm trying to say that a nuclear sub launch would still be detected before it was too late to counter.
#19
Quote by the spiker
I don't understand so maybe you can enlighten me. Many nations used to test weapons in the atmosphere and then underground. They would assess the damage and whatever else. Why not nuke the moon and asses the damage through a telescope? Why not nuke Mars where there is nothing but rocks and dust? Will not have to worry about radiation. Besides, ICBMs are nothing but rockets and certainly break free of our atmosphere. We can claim it's practice for that Earth-shattering asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

oh wow, please tell me that entire thing was just one long joke. my god, please....
#20
Quote by break-me-in
Yes, but if you consider that many smaller, unarmed countries have treaties and alliances with larger ones to protect them...

Still there were plenty of wars in the second half of the century weren't there?
My point is that MAD does not equal global peace.
Quote by sSyLc
Looking for a bj from an unsuspecting animal eh?
Member of The True Eccentric Tea Drinking Appreciation Preservation Society
Quote by denizenz
I came, I saw, I cleaned it up.
#21
Points have all been made, I agree with Nukes used as detterents, because it works, no one will **** around with you if you've got nukes, But with today's technology, theres no chance of Nuclear war, as it was said previously, Satallites, Sonar, Radar, Spy planes, and all sorts of other **** is out the for the enemy to know you've sent a nice pretty ICBM their way.
#22
Quote by the spiker
I don't understand so maybe you can enlighten me. Many nations used to test weapons in the atmosphere and then underground. They would assess the damage and whatever else. Why not nuke the moon and asses the damage through a telescope? Why not nuke Mars where there is nothing but rocks and dust? Will not have to worry about radiation. Besides, ICBMs are nothing but rockets and certainly break free of our atmosphere. We can claim it's practice for that Earth-shattering asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Oh god, isn't enough that we destroy ourselves?
Quote by sSyLc
Looking for a bj from an unsuspecting animal eh?
Member of The True Eccentric Tea Drinking Appreciation Preservation Society
Quote by denizenz
I came, I saw, I cleaned it up.
#23
personally, i think its all fun and games.

until someone gets hurt.
Your light bulb knows everything you do in your room.
#24
Quote by the spiker
Why not nuke the moon


The ramifications of nuking the moon could be phenominal.

It may disrupt our tides, it may put the moon on a different orbit, it may destoy it entirely.

I think we're better off not nuking the moon eh?
#25
Quote by saphrax
This is not true for MAD. I does not matter how many nukes you have once you reach a critical level. You must remember that with all the satellite imagery and whatever other means of detection there is, once a nuke is launched, the enemy will know about it.

It typically takes 30 mins for a nuke to go from Russia to the USA. That is plenty of time for you to launch a counter attack.

Whilst your point on nuclear submarines is valid, a sub can't simply creep up to the coast line and fire. The commander of the sub needs his official launch orders, and typically has to surface to get them. This leaves the sub exposed to all sorts of sonar, especially in calmer conditions. Ultimately, I'm trying to say that a nuclear sub launch would still be detected before it was too late to counter.


True... but MAD came about because of what I mentioned. If you have less nukes, you have more vulnerable assets. So you build more to scare the other. Once 'balance' is restored, you know exactly what's going to happen if you launch only one, due exactly to what you said.

Subs don't need to surface, they have floating beacons which are vulnerable to radars, but much less so than a full sub. They can also launch from under the sea.
The way submarines carrying nukes operate is that very few (not upwards of say, 10) would know where the submarine is. That includes the captain and navigation officers, but not the crew. The president only needs one express order, confirmed by the governement usually, to launch. It's the same process as with land based nukes, except the enemy doesn't know where it could be launching from. The point of having a fleet of such vessels is that there is no point on Earth, at any time, that is not attackable.

Man I wish I kept my IB history internal assessment I did it on whether the MX was necessary. There was a lot of fun info in there. The US basically totally overestimated what the USSR had, in fact they had themselves more, but thought they had less, and therefore felt vulnerable.

Note that my arguments are not from the side of common sense and with hindsight, but from the US/USSR point of view of the cold war Of course with what we know now it's easy to argue and criticize.
#26
Quote by chillrock
i hope they will stay in their current places and not get launched at anyone.

nuclear weapons also act as deterrents to nuking another country - for example in the cold war.


Indeed, and that is why they won't get used, which makes them good. Only a very mad dictator would Nuke a country and not care what the consequences on his own land would be.

The thing about WMDs, is that if one country has them, every country then feels the need to get them.

But, I'm in favour of nuclear weapons as tactical weapons, designed to win battles, not destroy countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
Quote by DrewsGotTheLife
yea man, who ever doesnt like pantera or think they suck doesnt like metal, end of discussion, they changed the freakin world n made history, so don't be sayin they suck, have respect, same goes for machine head n lamb of god cuz their good too
#27
Tac nukes like the AGM69 have not yet been used. The US favors precision high powered weapons now, like the Tomahawk or ALCM.
Same, in France we have the ASMP, but again they're more dissasive than anything else. Instead of nuking a base, use an Apache and ruin their runway.
#28
this thread just reminded me of THIS soo much
Quote by nebiru
Is this your music?

Are you confused? You have like 5 genres mixed into one thing. Who's the dude with the lisp rapping? because I bursted out laughing.
#29
Quote by Pott

Subs don't need to surface, they have floating beacons which are vulnerable to radars, but much less so than a full sub.


I never knew they had these. Many thanks for that bit of enlightenment. I find submarine warfare most interesting.
#30
Aye, I find warfare quite interesting too, which is bordering on the creepy at times :P Can't go in the army though, and can't become a pilot either due to really really poor eyesight which all blows.

The issues with nuke warfare RIGHT NOW are that shall we say 'some countries' which really, really shouldn't get it are developing it. Unfortunately they have the rather simplistic but valid argument of 'who are you to tell us we can't get it?'

The US has it and invade countries illegitimately. So why should they tell Iran and North Korea not to get their Nukes?

Iran's pose a huge threat to Israel. Israel have it too, but unofficially, and lack the launch vehicles. They mostly have tactical nukes I believe, fighter launched. Iran is developing long range ballistic missiles.

Pakistan and India were another issue, but they got both roughly at the same time so they counter balanced. But had one gotten it way before the other, it wouldn't have been pretty. Basically whichever country had it would have been able to claim Kashmir without fear of repraisals.
#31
Nuclear disarmament would actually be a very bad thing for the major powers. The nuclear powers are effectively untouchable militarily, as no-one in their right might would invade a country in possession of them. Compared to biological weapons, they are an extremely precise way of delivering incredibly high casualty counts, and can be used defensively as well as offensively. An entire invading force could be eliminated before it is even engaged using a single nuclear strike. The provide a deterent not just to nuclear strikes (through MAD) but also to conventional warfare on home territory.

If the major powers were to disarm, then the small nuclear powers would be comparitively stronger than they are, thanks to a nuclear threat. The nuclear threat is a very persuasive piece of politics, as demonstrated by Nixon's "Madman theory" whereby he made other nations think he was a crazed paranoid lunatic with his finger on the nuclear button - and this is what brought the North Vietnamise to the barganing table. Thatcher used the same tactic during the Falklands war - she told the french that she was considering the use of nuclear weapons against argentina and that she would authorise it unless the royal navy was given the Exocet disarmament codes. Like it or not, nuclear weapons are an essential part of modern politics, and are here to stay.

Contrast this to BW, which delivers a higher kill count, but with a massive potential for it to backfire, and can only really be used via covert means - any use of BW on a battlefield would be suicidal. BW is actually far more dangerous than nuclear weapons, making it a threat that must be eliminated at all costs - if you think a nation has BW, then you simply have to throw caution to the wind and hope you defeat them before they have a chance to use them.
#32
The French didn't give those codes though, and you lost the Sheffield through good use of these missiles.

It's become a giant poker game where the wrong bluff guess can cost a lot more than your hand.
#34
In the 90s too. I don't like France at all, (I AM French) and that's one of the reasons.
#35
Quote by Pott
The French didn't give those codes though, and you lost the Sheffield through good use of these missiles.

It's become a giant poker game where the wrong bluff guess can cost a lot more than your hand.


Yes, she didn't get the codes, and Kudos to the french for not giving in.

When has politics been anything else? Look at the 2 world wars, the civil wars at the end of the roman republic, and many other cases throughout history - people bluffed, assuming they could get away with it, and the bluff got called at the wrong time.
#36
The biggest bluff I was talking about is the one that says no one will launch. It takes one person crazier than others to launch. We got lucky. Someone like Hitler or Kim Jong Il may just be crazy enough to have used/use them, regardless of the assured retaliation. We just would rather assume they didn't as a way to convince ourselves, while having blind faith in a pretty much useless UN.
#40
Quote by Zakkmann
Mutually Assured Distruction was the worste diplomatic strategy ever. you can not feasiblty say it was a good idea. It worked in defeating the Soviet Union, yes, but any historian will tell you it was the dumbest thing we could have done.

EDIT: I do IB History



i never said it was a good idea, and MAD was not invented, it was just a fact of the time that, if the US nuked the USSR, the whole world would go down.

would it have been better if only one side had had nukes? then one country would have wiped out the other, there would have been massive fallout, and millions of people would have died. and if neither had had nukes, there could have been a continuance of WW2.

there is no good thing about nuclear weapons, apart from the fact that they stopped a 3rd world war between the US and the USSR. the fear of nukes was the reason that a full scale war did not break out. if it had been full scale, both countries would be in ruins.

so the dumbest thing you could have done is to not nuke the USSR? Mutually Assured Destruction saved the world from nuclear holocaust.
Does anyone remember laughter?

Manuel, please try to understand before one of us DIES.

my gear:

Gibson LP Standard
Epiphone SG
Classical guitar
Peavey ValveKing 112
Marshall MG15
BOSS ME-50
Page 1 of 2