Nuclear Weapons as Deterrents

[Enraged American]

Does anyone believe that nuclear weapons can be beneficial to the world by deterring war? Would Hitler have invaded France if France had nukes? What's keeping Pakistan and India from going to war? Nuclear weapons can be the key to world peace in a way, I think at least.

[Pepperbelly]

1. they worked ...

ok, I guess, during the Cold War. At least a goodly part of us lived through it and the world is still here.

[dalsept]

2. in a rational world

Provided that they remain in the hands of rational state actors. Unfortunately this is very hard to gaurantee and an impossibly risky wager. The fewer bombs there are to be controlled the safer we all are.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi dalsept!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[frank frankly]

3. its a stalemate if we stop making them

we have enough

they scare me like few other things. i like this planet.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

4. Hmmm...

That's funny, I was just listening to the Groundhogs' classic 1970 album "Thank Christ for the Bomb" and if you believe the lyrics that's how they felt about it.

And FYI, it's spelled "Nookyalur".

[Bertrand]

5. Yes, i think they are benificial deterrents

i mean, if two world wars could be fought by successive generations, i think it shows that the argument of give peace a chance doesnt hold very well with the ones with power.

[leanings]

6. They were beneficial

now, as someone else pointed out, they aren't only found in the hands of rational state actors. We also don't have the potential to get involved in a conventional war nowadays of the size that nukes helped prevent. We're on to fourth gen warfare now, whole new ballgame, and nukes are a dangerous wild card. I'd love to see the US and everyone else in the world cut their stockpiles by 90 or 95%.

[fleetus]

7. Past performance does not guarentee

I agree the idea worked during the cold war.

NATO countries knew that if nuclear weapons were used against a Soviet country, the USSR would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Further, it was impossible to take out all the Soviet missiles in a first strike. Sure some could be destroyed, but enough would remain for the USSR to blow up the "our half" of the world too. So we never launched a nuclear strike. The same is true in reverse for the USSR.

It was also clear that any use of nuclear weapons by another country would not be tolerated by either superpower. That third country would be obliterated.

In my opinion things are less stable now.

Although I am not sure on this, I believe it is probably within the capacity of the U.S. to "win" in a first strike scenario against the Former Soviet Union (FSU). Mainly because the money is not there for the FSU to protect their missiles from a first strike. (The U.S. protects many of its missiles from a first strike by placing them on unlocatable submarines... a fairly expensive process).

Also, from what I've been reading, the U.S. has been shifting policy toward the idea of considering the use nuclear weapons for other than retaliation against another country's first nuclear strike. This policy was unthinkable when it was assured that Russia would launch its missiles at the first sign of us launching ours. Now, with the FSU at least on speaking terms with us and at best an ally, there is no guarantee our use of nukes would come with consequences.

If ANOTHER country used nuclear weapons they would most assuredly face nuclear weapons from the United States. Right? Well, I can think of a few cases where it may not happen. With the United States floating signals that it is considering adding nukes to it's first use arsenal, it sends a signal to other allies that they could do the same. North Korea would be wiped off the map if they lobbed one at South Korea, but what would be the U.S. response to Israel sending a nuke to Iran? I just don't think the consequences (i.e. mutual assured destruction) are as clear as they used to be.

Finally, if a nuclear bomb got in the hands of a terrorist organization, the standard threat of mutual assured destruction does not apply. Especially if a link could not be made to a specific country.

I can't fault other countries for seeking nuclear weapons. They are a powerful deterrent. Now days it definitely seems like weaker countries are the ones targeted for attack.

Nuclear capable countries are attacked in such a way that they can't retaliate with nukes... they are attacked by terrorists.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi fleetus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[cmf]

10. Good point

I'm not sure how effective they'll be at deterrance now that BushCo. has suggested using them as offensive weapons.

From: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/reportaboutface.html

Defense expert William M. Arkin, who provided the first detailed public analysis of the Pentagon’s secret nuclear posture in a March 10th commentary in the Los Angeles Times, sums up the new Bush policy as follows: by elaborating "an integrated, significantly expanded planning doctrine for nuclear wars," it "reverses an almost two-decades-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort."<1>