Would denuclearization help?

[remnant]

Some pundits argue that reduction and even elimination of nuclear weapons from the world would result in a safer planet. But I suppose this would result in more conflicts as the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) would become fuzzy or irrelevant. Do you think conventional armaments can serve as a credible deterrent?

 

[Murica]

I don't really agree with getting rid of nukes, but I do think that only certain nations should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons AND nuclear resources in general. For example, Iran is not a country we want to have the ability to make a bomb. North Korea too. The United Nations has to take action in certain cases.

 

[Muslim_ICBM_&_thermonukes]

Essentially, there is no difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons.

They do the same job and they are meant to do the same jobs, except that nuclear weapons can do it on a much grander scale.

Once the genie has been let out, it cannot be put back in.

Given the rogue behaviour of the Western world during the last 200/more years given how it behaved since 2001, neutral observers must say that countries or political units that equip themselves with nuclear bombs atop ballistic or other missiles of strategic significance should do so at the earliest.

There is everything to gain and nothing to lose if all such countries start the nuclearization process.

 

[dogs of war]

Essentially, there is no difference between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons.

They do the same job and they are meant to do the same jobs, except that nuclear weapons can do it on a much grander scale.

Once the genie has been let out, it cannot be put back in.

Given the rogue behaviour of the Western world during the last 200/more years given how it behaved since 2001, neutral observers must say that countries or political units that equip themselves with nuclear bombs atop ballistic or other missiles of strategic significance should do so at the earliest.

There is everything to gain and nothing to lose if all such countries start the nuclearization process.

You don't think nuclear devices are much scarier than non-nuclear munitions? The big fear with nuclear proliferation was that non-state actors could effectively decide military policy for a state, and that is a fear that is MUCH, MUCH less realized with ISIS and those other related actors. The idea of a small group using a (relatively) small amount of GDP to acquire a dirty bomb and being able to hold a city at risk is still a very, very scary one.

Nuclear devices are much scarier, to me at least, because there is essentially zero ability to use them tactically. Once fired, they kill nearly everyone in the target area, destroy most standing structures, and even go so far as to ruin the groundsoil and kill or poison all animals in the surviving blast area. They don't just take out targets like conventional weapons, they attack the future itself.

This, I think, it an exceptionally worrying possibility to face. While, individually, there is good benefit for every country itself to gain nuclear capability, there's a large determent to all of us if every state has a finger on the button -- it becomes much more likely that one nuke goes off. Given what a nuke represents, too, and our twisted web of global alliances, it's easy to image a volley of denotations going back and forth until there's nothing left. This is a bit like the unscrupulous diner's dillema.

 

[Muslim_ICBM_&_thermonukes]

You don't think nuclear devices are much scarier than non-nuclear munitions? The big fear with nuclear proliferation was that non-state actors could effectively decide military policy for a state, and that is a fear that is MUCH, MUCH less realized with ISIS and those other related actors. The idea of a small group using a (relatively) small amount of GDP to acquire a dirty bomb and being able to hold a city at risk is still a very, very scary one.

Nuclear devices are much scarier, to me at least, because there is essentially zero ability to use them tactically. Once fired, they kill nearly everyone in the target area, destroy most standing structures, and even go so far as to ruin the groundsoil and kill or poison all animals in the surviving blast area. They don't just take out targets like conventional weapons, they attack the future itself.

This, I think, it an exceptionally worrying possibility to face. While, individually, there is good benefit for every country itself to gain nuclear capability, there's a large determent to all of us if every state has a finger on the button -- it becomes much more likely that one nuke goes off. Given what a nuke represents, too, and our twisted web of global alliances, it's easy to image a volley of denotations going back and forth until there's nothing left. This is a bit like the unscrupulous diner's dillema.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are living examples that nuclear detonation does not make the region uninhabitable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities in Japan, today.

In contrast, countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya are smouldering ruins even though they were not (officially) nuked.

This goes to show that nuclear bombs are just like any other explosive devices, and the world is better off if every country and political entity has this at its disposal.

It makes no difference whether you are killed by a "conventional bomb" or a "nuclear bomb".

You are given two options.

A: All of your family members, friends, countrymen and women (including children and elderly) will be killed within the next 10 minutes by the usage of nuclear weapons. [This is the Default choice. If you make no choice within 10 seconds, this option is activated.]

B: All of your family members, friends, countrymen and women (including children and elderly) will be killed within the next 10 minutes by the usage of conventional weapons.


Which of these two options A or B do you choose? You have 10 seconds to make a choice. If you do not make a choice within these 10 seconds, the default option is chosen.

With this example, you can probably better appreciate why there is no difference between nuclear bombs and conventional ones.

There have been lots of instances of collateral damage, as the euphemistic Western term for it goes, using conventional weapons. Thus, once again, conventional weapons are no better than nuclear weapons in their discrimination efforts. At least one country, Pakistan, has publicly announced its intention to use nuclear weapons in tactical roles.

Given that the 5 'recognized nuclear powers' are not going to let go of their ability, it makes eminent sense to introduce this capability mated with the required delivery vehicles like ballistic missiles or hypersonic glide vehicles HGV tried by China to all countries and political units for the safeguarding of their national or political independence.

 

[dogs of war]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are living examples that nuclear detonation does not make the region uninhabitable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities in Japan, today.

In contrast, countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya are smouldering ruins even though they were not (officially) nuked.

This goes to show that nuclear bombs are just like any other explosive devices, and the world is better off if every country and political entity has this at its disposal.

It makes no difference whether you are killed by a "conventional bomb" or a "nuclear bomb".

You are given two options.

A: All of your family members, friends, countrymen and women (including children and elderly) will be killed within the next 10 minutes by the usage of nuclear weapons. [This is the Default choice. If you make no choice within 10 seconds, this option is activated.]

B: All of your family members, friends, countrymen and women (including children and elderly) will be killed within the next 10 minutes by the usage of conventional weapons.


Which of these two options A or B do you choose? You have 10 seconds to make a choice. If you do not make a choice within these 10 seconds, the default option is chosen.

With this example, you can probably better appreciate why there is no difference between nuclear bombs and conventional ones.

There have been lots of instances of collateral damage, as the euphemistic Western term for it goes, using conventional weapons. Thus, once again, conventional weapons are no better than nuclear weapons in their discrimination efforts. At least one country, Pakistan, has publicly announced its intention to use nuclear weapons in tactical roles.

Given that the 5 'recognized nuclear powers' are not going to let go of their ability, it makes eminent sense to introduce this capability mated with the required delivery vehicles like ballistic missiles or hypersonic glide vehicles HGV tried by China to all countries and political units for the safeguarding of their national or political independence.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very outdated examples given that our nuclear technology was incredibly terrible and we later assisted heavily in the reconstruction of those cities. We have a very, very, very trenchent and small desire, if any at all, to assist in the reconstruction of individual Iraqi, Afghan, Syrian, etc. cities. We have not done what we did for Japan in a very long time.

Furthermore, the rebuilding of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was aided by the fact that most Japanese had some training in formal skills that yeomen lack. Many cities in Iraq and Afghanistan are made up entirely of people with yeoman skills like animal husbandry and crop farming that would suffer tremendously 5, 10, even 15 years on after the detonation of nuclear munitions.

I also find your examples both extremely troubling and tactically ignorant, from a militaristic perspective. We are not in the business of mass targeting. We don't do mass murder.

While there may not be a directly foreseeable difference between normal and nuclear munitions, there is an extreme difference over time on the productivity of the areas targeted and the ability of nuclear fallout to damage and kill long after a bomb is detonated. And, furthermore, even though there has been lots of collateral damage, that's because American targets are normally holed up in cities with lots of innocents. Our latent developments have been all designed to minimize civilian casualties -- switching from these extremely tactical weapons to nuclear weapons would absolutely decimate any civilians, and this would be fairly problematic, as you may imagine.

 

[Muslim_ICBM_&_thermonukes]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very outdated examples given that our nuclear technology was incredibly terrible and we later assisted heavily in the reconstruction of those cities. We have a very, very, very trenchent and small desire, if any at all, to assist in the reconstruction of individual Iraqi, Afghan, Syrian, etc. cities. We have not done what we did for Japan in a very long time.

What do you mean by "we"?

Furthermore, the rebuilding of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was aided by the fact that most Japanese had some training in formal skills that yeomen lack. Many cities in Iraq and Afghanistan are made up entirely of people with yeoman skills like animal husbandry and crop farming that would suffer tremendously 5, 10, even 15 years on after the detonation of nuclear munitions.

The USA used depleted uranium in Iraq. Does that count as conventional weapons?

I also find your examples both extremely troubling and tactically ignorant, from a militaristic perspective. We are not in the business of mass targeting. We don't do mass murder.

You do.

All your wars are those involving mass murder.

Recent examples include those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan.

While there may not be a directly foreseeable difference between normal and nuclear munitions, there is an extreme difference over time on the productivity of the areas targeted and the ability of nuclear fallout to damage and kill long after a bomb is detonated.

Which one of the two choices do you prefer?

A: All of your family members, friends, countrymen and women (including children and elderly) will be killed within the next 10 minutes by the usage of nuclear weapons. [This is the Default choice. If you make no choice within 10 seconds, this option is activated.]

B: All of your family members, friends, countrymen and women (including children and elderly) will be killed within the next 10 minutes by the usage of conventional weapons.


Which of these two options A or B do you choose? You have 10 seconds to make a choice. If you do not make a choice within these 10 seconds, the default option is chosen.

You should ask all the innocent victims of the American and western military operations if they would pick A or B.

My understanding is they would agree with me.

If they could, they definitely would like to have their fingers on the proverbial button to trigger a nuclear reaction, rather than have to make the choice above.

And, furthermore, even though there has been lots of collateral damage, that's because American targets are normally holed up in cities with lots of innocents. Our latent developments have been all designed to minimize civilian casualties -- switching from these extremely tactical weapons to nuclear weapons would absolutely decimate any civilians, and this would be fairly problematic, as you may imagine.

You should not have invaded those countries, then.

The same argument goes for nuclear weapons, by the way.

If you do not want all American citizens to die, you can ask all your military personnel and government officials to gather in the open in some desert in the Western USA, so that your adversaries from Iran to North Korea to Russia or China can selectively eliminate exclusively military targets.

Would your military and government do that? Expose themselves to nuclear 'fire' in the open in the desert and stop holing themselves up amidst civilians?

That is all the more reason that all countries and political units that care for their independence should go the North Korean route, a most noble and respectable route, I might add. A route of sovereignty and independence.

North Korean military might ensures, guarantees that it won't face the fate of the Middle East.

 

[vash]

MAD is actually stopping the top dogs from fighting each other directly with conventional weapons. But it is not stopping the little guys (who do not have nuclear weapons) from fighting each other, nor stop the top dogs bully the little guys around. What's more? It doesn't stop tog dogs fight proxy wars by using the little guys.

Disarm all nuclear weapons will probably just create more conventional wars. It is human nature... at least for some of the guys who are in charge... While conventional wars might not directly kill that many people in one blow, in the long run it might actually cause more deaths.