<font color="cyan">Recently, alot of people have said that they wish nuclear missiles were never invented.

I think these statements are quite naieve, and that the people havent thought about them. I might be wrong.

Ok, the reason I say this, is because, with the threat of nuclear war (although not one missile has ever been fired at a hostile target, yet....) people are blatently avoiding going to war.

WW1 & WW2 would not have occured if both sides had nuclear missiles. They are such a big deterrant, that they are STOPPING wars rather than being a threat.

Obviously I know nothing about this stuff, and I'm not saying that the above is my opinion, I'm just asking for people to debate so I can learn a bit more :D </font>

would be nice if everybody hd nuclear weapons
but when a nuclear war really starts, the bombs dont work [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hitler with nuke?

Bye bye world.

Wars HAVE been fought in the nuclear age.

Korean War
Vietnam War
Falklands War
Iran-Iraq War
Indo-Pakistani War
Chechnya
Russo-Afgahn War
Gulf War
Arab-Israeli War
Russian Invasion of Hungary
Balkan Wars
Greco-Turkish War
Hutu-Titsi War
Ethiopian civil war
Countless other civil wars in Africa
American War against Al-Qaeda

So no nuclear bomb has been dropped since the Americans blew up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Great. The existence of the bomb hasn't stopped wars at all. England had the bomb vs Argentina in the Falklands war. Israel have had it vs the Arab states. India and Pakistan have nukes.

Those that HAVE the bomb, still engage in wars.

Nuclear Weapon technology is a bright line divider among nations. The general wisdom has been that once you possess Nukes you become (ultimately) untouchable regarding war. Now, diplomacy and threats still occur, but France and Germany won't ever go to war again - for the simple reason that they possess the capability to annihalate each other and huge chunks of the world around them.

But, lately there's this new class of nuclear powers - those who just have 2 or 3 bombs and no real systems to get them to the target. Pakistan, India, North Korea - you get the picture. BTW, I humbly note that in 1997 I predicted India & Pakistan would announce nuclear tech within 5 years, and that the rest of the nations throughout that region would feel the pressure to step up and say they had or were developing nukes.

But, these "upstart" nuclear powers are not the same as the Big Boys. As we will see over the next few years, nuclear technology no longer puts you in that class of nations that can't be f***ed with. You have to have the bomb plus all associated systems to use it on a widescale basis. A single warhead missile sitting in N.K. with the capability of just barely reaching the other side of Japan is quite different than an ICBM sitting in an underground siloh in Oklahoma that can deliver 50 individually-targeted warheads simultaneously anywhere on the planet.

I think over the next quarter century we just might see nuclear weapons used in conventional warfare. Mini-nukes, IMO, will be the beginning of the real problems with nuclear warfare.

PS - Your statement that this technology has never been used is slightly incorrect, as citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can well testify.

<font color="cyan">That wasn't my point, sorry If I didn't explain well.

And if Hitler had a nuke, he wouldn't dare fire. As one would be fired back at Germany, leaving NO people let alone his work of a super race.

And my point was, if there was NO nuke, we would now be at war with Iraq, the terrorists, etc etc. There would be MORE fighting if nukes weren't around.</font>

What Yorik is missing is that two nuclear powers have never engaged each other in war. That was my point. Yes, nuclear powers still fight conventional wars - but (as far as I can recall) not against each other directly.

<font color="cyan">I thought those were Atomic, not nuclear?

I believed there to be a difference, but I stand to be corrected?!?</font>

<font color="cyan">Hammer Nail Head. Spot on.</font>

<font color="cyan">I thought those were Atomic, not nuclear?

I believed there to be a difference, but I stand to be corrected?!?</font></font>[/QUOTE]Unless I'm mistaken, the only difference is the atom which is used to run the chain reaction.

Nucleair weapons have encouraged terrorism ( guerilla-tactics ) in a way.
The only way to safely attack a power with Nucleair weapons, is by attacking it without leaving obvious evidence it was you.
That way that power wont have sufficient reason to use his nucleair capabilities .. Because it's such a destructive weapon, you have to be sure you're attacking the right one. Both from moral and a public perspective.

Al Qaida would we wiped out if it had a country .. but it's a terrorist group that works in small cells. Pakistan and India are constantly being attacked by terrorists. The military might be more or less incapable of launching an attack, but that doesnt mean there isnt war. Terrorist ( maybe even the military --> military/state terrorism ) have no real problems attacking, because you cant aim a nucleair bomb at them.. you dont know who they are for certain.

So I doubt Nucleair weapons have prevented wars,.. merely changed their form.

EDIT:
Atomic and Nucleair bomb are very often used as synonyms of eachother.
Not sure if its correct, but since everybody does it .. why not? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-08-2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: daan ]

<font color="cyan">I thought those were Atomic, not nuclear?

I believed there to be a difference, but I stand to be corrected?!?</font></font>[/QUOTE]Atomic and nuclear are synonymous. Fission and fusion are not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with fission bombs (powered by uranium). Modern fission weapons use plutonium, and modern fusion (so-called thermonuclear) weapons have a plutonium bomb as the trigger.

Would the world be better off without nukes?

Would it mean I'd have to give up my microwave?

I think you make a good point, daan.

BTW, 50 USC 47(f) provides a bit of insight on the Nuclear v. Atomic issue:

(a)
The term ''atomic energy'' means all forms of energy released in the course of nuclear fission or nuclear transformation.

(b)
The term ''atomic weapon'' means any device utilizing atomic energy, exclusive of the means for transporting or propelling the device (where such means is a separable and divisible part of the device), the principal purpose of which is for use as, or for development of, a weapon, a weapon prototype, or a weapon test device.

(c)
The term ''special nuclear material'' means plutonium, or uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, or any other material which is found to be special nuclear material pursuant to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

For lots of cool info and pics of nukes, go to this thoroughly invigorating site detailing Atomic Tourist Hotspots:
http://www.atomictraveler.com/AtomicMuseums.htm

Speculating on what Hitler may or not have done is kinda pointless. Nor do I think retaliation would have been a deterrent. WWII still went on after the Firestorms of Dresden (granted not much longer) and that was only a conventional attack. BTW, Dresden was the single most destructive sortie of WWII with over 150K civilian casualties, more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Yes indeed. And a subject usually swept over more so, because there is no political axe to grind with the issue. ;)

The firebombing of Tokyo achieved similar results; Japan was ready to surrender after the first nuke - the second was just pure nastiness. The US dropped the second so they could tell the Russians they had no more in inventory.

I believe Sir Krustin has just made a remark that's going to derail this whole thread. Sit back and watch the fireworks go!! [img]graemlins/shooter18.gif[/img]

Here's a link that seems quite credible, and I admit I haven't read it all yet.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/

[ 01-08-2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

:D Just realized that, myself, TL.

It's a well-rehearsed thread around a few friends of mine, one of them a history major. We both believe that Jimmy Dolittle would have been executed as a war criminal had the tables been turned.

Back on topic ....

I think there are a number of technologies that the world sould be better off without (please don't take my engineers membership card!) - alot that are usually considdered good too. As for wether the world would be more peaceful with out "WoMD"? No I don't think so, as there are much deeper seeded problems than the "size of everyones weapon".

Because nukes gave us an incentive to develop the missile technology that was later used to go to the moon, I think I've decided we would not be better off without them.

<font color="cyan">I disagree with this entirely. You would not nuke a country, if it was going to nuke you back. FULL STOP!</font>

But destruction was not a deterrent. Hitler had the Luffte Waffe launch well over 100 V2s (the first ICBM) at Britain, in addittion to regular sorties. The Allies responded with the systemic destruction of Germany's industrial capability, culminating with Dresden. Germany still did not yield, nor did it stop the V2s, until the Allies were litterally on the streets of Berlin. Not even Dresden (which again was more destructive than Fat Man and Little Boy combined) quailed them.

Also Germany was very close to their own A-bomb and had plans of attatching it to a V2.

Every one makes a big stink about "nukes". There are conventional weapons that are every bit as destructive in yields. A single solar flare carries more ionizing radiation to Earth than multiple nuclear MIRV detonations (no exact figures) yet there are no campains to "End the Solar Environmental Threat".

I'm not making light of the threat of nukes, just noting that they are not the be all - end all.

[edited to complete thought]

[ 01-08-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

<font color="cyan">I disagree with this entirely. You would not nuke a country, if it was going to nuke you back. FULL STOP!</font></font>[/QUOTE]Once Hitler realised he had lost, he killed himself and his lover.

What makes you think, if he had a nuke, he wouldn't have used it? Especially knowing that Jews of America would be amongst the winners.

I think it's a certainty, that had Hitler the nuclear firepower the US or Russia had during the cold war, the world would be no more.

His world is no more.

Did you read this before you posted?
It would be nice if everybody had nuclear weapons????

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard I try, I can't understand the logic behind this.
What purpose exactly would everybody having nuclear weapons serve?
Some might say to deter war, but the better deterent would be common sense. Nuclear weapons have NEVER detered war whatsever. They may have stopped other nuclear powers from launching warheads, but that's a moot point if no one has them.
And just exactly what are we supposed to do with all these nuclear weapons that everybody has? Obviously they can't be used so....

I can't believe what I'm reading here. I expected to see this thread full of people saying that yes, we would be better off without them, but instead I find the exact opposite.

I will never understand why it is necessary for the world to destroy itself.
daan made an excellent point.
Nobody thought the the WTC would ever be attacked and destroyed in the manner that is was. Five years ago it was unthinkable and quite a laughable proposition.
Having said that, could you imagine what would happen if just one terrorist managed to detonate the US's own warheads on US soil. Granted I have no idea how how that could possible happen, but it is a possibility however remote it may be. I again direct you to the WTC incident. It was thought of as an impossible scenario.
Nuclear weapons have only one purpose: To kill, maim and injure a s**tload of people. They certainly weren't developed to deter war. The possibility of a nuclear accident is very real.
However, it is a moot point. We have them, now what are we supposed to do with them?

The real scary thing about the WTC was not that it was not thought of .... but dismissed.

I still stand by "the world would not be better without nukes". People would still find ways of eliminating eachothers bloodlines.

For sure, not having nukes wouldn't do anything to stop war, but nukes have a bad habit of involving people who don't want to be involved.

The thug that victimises people does a nice job of involving people that don't want to be involed in a mugging too. It's not the nukes that are the problem, just tools used by the problem.

And what of the underlying fear nuclear weapons caused our generation? WHat about that. The uncertainty of knowing that the whole WORLD could be destroyed at the touch of a madmans button.

You don't think that every boy, girl, man woman and child, would sleep just that little bit easier if that fact was erased? If the perilous state of the planet was taken out of the equation.

I'm not suggesting that people are quaking in their boots, nor that there wouldn't/aren't other fears more relevant in a persons life.

However, I don't see how some can arguing that removing such a backdrop from peoples minds wouldn't be a better reality.

Wouldn't you want to eliminate the thug who's mugging people? It's too bad we couldn't put nukes in prison. :D

It's refreshing to see someone who shares my beliefs. I for one would much rather live in that world than this one.

Well, Yorick, you're a little older than I. I was still terorizing the creatures in the back yard in the 70s and exploring the world on my bike in the 80s. So I can't put a perspective Cold War - even though I grew up in it. It couldn't be much different from the anxiety that I currently face in the possibility of being deployed, though. What you guys are talking about though wasn't the question. It was wether the world would be better with out nukes, and for the reasons I've stated, I don't think it would, there are too many other issues that need to be delt with.

Now as for the world you are hinting at. There is a world even better that I would rather live in. One that doesn't require me to pick up a weapon to defend myself, home, freedom, or countrymen. A world that does not seek to tear itself apart, destroy others ect. A world that lets everyone live and let live, without judgment or infringement.

So from that point I agree with you. But I also know that the city of Kubblakhan does not exist.

[ 01-08-2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Just say no to Nukes. Nukes are Bad. mmmmmkay?

Hell yes the world would be better off with-out nukes.

Even trying to play devils advocate about the issue, one must still face the enourmous destructive potential of nuclear weapons coupled with the undesirable/immoral facets of human nature. I am suprised we have survived this long with-out an attack somewhere, after many nukes became unaccounted for in the former U.S.S.R.

Edited-oops

[ 01-08-2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Did you read this before you posted?
It would be nice if everybody had nuclear weapons????

I'm sorry, but no matter how hard I try, I can't understand the logic behind this.
What purpose exactly would everybody having nuclear weapons serve?
Some might say to deter war, but the better deterent would be common sense. Nuclear weapons have NEVER detered war whatsever. They may have stopped other nuclear powers from launching warheads, but that's a moot point if no one has them.
And just exactly what are we supposed to do with all these nuclear weapons that everybody has? Obviously they can't be used so....</font>[/QUOTE]Everybody fears nuklear bombs
The USA feared russia coz they had nuklear bombs and vice versa
Never did one nuklear power dare fight another
now if everybody would have nuklear weapon nobody would dare attack
and if you had bother to read the rest of my post
would a nuklear war really happen and the bomb wouldnt work
that'd be great (relatively seen)

Fear is not the road to peace. As Yorick pointed out, the Cold War was 40 YEARS of fear and tension and was the cause of numerous smaller scale proxy wars, nation building, assassinations, ect. Most of the proxy battles are unknown and classified. The Bay of Pigs very nearly sparked off nuclear war, fortunatly Moscow blinked. The Cold War really didn't end because attitudes changed all that much either. There are hard liners on both sides of the fence still today. It ended because the Soviet economy could no longer support it. No, while MAD (mutually assured destruction) is a deterent, the fear it generates is not a solution.

While I don't think the world would be better without the nukes, I certainly believe the world would be infinitely better without the need for nukes to have been invented in the first place.

[side note: all of the 20th centuries problems can be blamed on the French .... sorry Morraine - let me clarify - Napoleon]

<font color="#ffccff">Welcome to M.A.D. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="cyan">I agree with Rikard more than anyone.

Some comments I dnt agree with.

1. Hitler, if he fired, you say would not have feared being retialited on. That would be IMMINENT defeat. Attacking with missiles is different from Nukes. He cant be defeated instantly, hence 5 years. As soon as the first nuke was fired, the war would be over within a fraction compared to what it was.

2. Fear is a deterrant. Why are people saying its not?

3. Nuclear Powers will never fire against another Nuclear Power. Ever.

4. I'll be surprise if a Nuclear Power ever fires against a Non-Nuclear Power.

And Yorrick, no I dnt think people would sleep easier without Nukes in the world. Ive never even dwelt on the fact they exist. And I doubt one will be fired in my lifetime. They are a deterrant. Not a weapon. And so far, as they havent been used (bar the A-bomb - which was a bomb, in a war!!!) I think that shows this.</font>

Considering the way that the USA is heading under the Questionable Leadership of George W., Id say that there is a, if not good, then fair chance of a nuclear weapon being launched in our lifetime.
I am incredibly sorry that our nation got stuck with G.W. for our prez, and what the whole of the US has to go through with now that he is trying to "clean up" terrorism...

<font color=Forestgreen>When you think about it, everything that is created to do good, can be used for bad, or destruction. I am talking about inventions that were initially designed to help people but can also be used to kill people. I can't think of any examples at the moment.</font>

How 'bout hunting knives? Used for skinning game, and so on. Many times these have been used in murders and barroom brawls.