<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 ]