Discussion: Do Nuclear Weapons Promote Peace?

[_Mr. Coffee]

It is generally accepted that the proliferation of nuclear arms is a Bad Thing(TM). On the face of it, this sounds reasonable- surely, with such destructive power in the hands of more and more states, the chances of an eventual nuclear exchange will increase, right?

But what about their ability to deter conventional aggression? The Cold War is a standing monument to that, where, at great expense to both the US/NATO and The USSR, the powers maintained large nuclear arsenals aimed at assuring the destruction of the enemy even in the event of a successful first strike against them. As a consequence, they fought a few generally small, relatively undestructive wars through proxies, and the population and territory of both were safeguarded from the ravages of conventional war (be it ground or air attack) for a little less than 50 years.

Same goes for India and Pakistan- I would submit that each country possessing nuclear ability keeps them from getting in over their heads when they're fighting over Kashmir.

What do you think?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I think while MAD should scare any rational person away from using nukes, nukes are still nukes. Someday someone who isn't rational (and there are already people trying to) will get a nuke and who knows what will happen? As long as nukes are around the threat is there. If some rogue nation or terrorist group or whatever gets one, it's going to be bad.

[_twinkie]

They did in Hiroshima.

[_Mr. Coffee]

I'll reply soon... Right now I;m to fuking drunk to do it, but goddamned it I din't find supid crap a a glance...

[_Pokatator]

I believe that nukes are bad. But how does the world disarm?

[_Mr. Coffee]

Wow... four day benders are fun untill the alcohol runs out. Friendly bit of advice for you nice people... Never try to keep pace with a Russian while drinking. They make Irishmen look like teetotaling sissies. But that's another story...

Anyways, as promised, my reply to some of the above.

I think while MAD should scare any rational person away from using nukes, nukes are still nukes.

Mutually Assured Destruction is probably one of the more misunderstood concepts of the Cold War. The confusion lays in that MAD was not a strategic doctrine held by either the US/NATO or the USSR/Warsaw Pact, but that it is the outcome of starting a nuclear exchange. It's best summed up as "One flies, they all fly", meaning if a single nuclear weapon is used all sides involved now have to decide if it was an accidental release, a limited exchange, or a prelude to an all out strike. Weapons on the ground are vulnerable, so a nuclear power under attack will most likely choose to use their own deterent force against the attacker out of fear of having their deterent destroyed by a pre-emptive strike, the "use it or loose it" mentality.

MAD is also misunderstood in that it requires that all sides involved have the ability to "assure" the destruction of each other. The only time that was true was during the Cold War, and then, only in reference to the United States and Russia. At the height of the Cold War the US and USSR had deployed deterent forces numbering over 10,000 warheads a piece. Every other nuclear power on the planet combined has never numbered more than 1,000 devices.

Since the collapse of the USSR, Russia hasn't had the money to properlly maintain either their number of deployable devices or their delivery systems. The US still has its full strategic deterent force triad of ICBMs, bombers, and ballasitic missile submarines in proper working order.

So the paradigm has changed from Mutually Assured Destruction to just Assured Destruction, as the US is the only nation left that can assure the destruction of anyone that attacks us.

Someday someone who isn't rational (and there are already people trying to) will get a nuke and who knows what will happen?

Actually, we know pretty well what will happen when a seemingly irrational state actor gains nuclear weapons. We've seen it happen at least three times in the last 50 years with the People's Republic of China, India, and Pakistan (Also probably with Israel and North Korea).

In the Case of the PRC, prior to gaining the Bomb, Chairman Mao was keen of trying to bully, bribe, beg, whine, and cajole the USSR into a nuclear war with the US and the West under the idea that the great communist revolution would rise from the ashes. Fast forward a few years to when China detonated their first nuke. Suddenly the PRC got really damned quiet. All of a sudden you stopped seeing the PRC overtly supporting neighboring nations with their own military as they did in the Korean War. Instead you started seeing them playing the same kind of warfare by proxie that the US and USSR used when they limited support for North Vietnam to an advisory capacity. Suddenly irrational China became very rational People's Republic of China.

India and Pakistan have been at each other's throats over Kashimir basically since both nations became independant states. They both develope nuclear weapons and suddenly they aren't so keen of fighting anymore. Infact, the last time Pakistan conducted a missile test they invited Indian military officials over to watch just to make sure that India didn't get the wrong idea.

The thing is, nuclear weapons aren't just a bigger kind of bomb. They are an entirely different class of weapons with a wide range of horrific effects that wqhen witnessed first hand bring home the idea to that new nuclear power that while they can destroy other nations, they too can be destroyed in turn. Ain't strategic paralysis a bitch?

It should also be noted that the only instances of nuclear weapons being used in anger was committed by a very rational state actor. That'd be us.

If some rogue nation or terrorist group or whatever gets one, it's going to be bad.

A "rogue nation" with a single nuke or even a handfull of them is more of a threat to themselves then anyone else. Simply having nukes is actually pretty damned meaningless unless you also have the means to deliver them to a target. Assuming that irrational NNP does have a means of delivery, it will be very likely limited to intermediate range systems that make it a regional threat at best. Even then, they have the ability to severely damage a single city.

In return their national can and WILL be annihilated.

For example, let's say that Iran does develope nukes and Ahmadinejad carries out his threat to destroy Israel. Problem is, Iran's best delivery system is basically an upgunned SCUD that can only hit Israel at the very extreme edge of it's engagement range. Added to that is that Iran will only have a very limited number of devices. The only real targeting option available to Iran would be a counter-population strate as they have neither the number of weapons or delivery systems needed to go after Israel's military.

Tel Aviv has a very bad day.

In response the Israelis fire back with their own nuclear weapons. Tehran has an even worse day.

But it gets better... See, the US is really good friends with Israel. One Trident Class SSBN comes to firing depth in the Arabian sea and every military and infrastructure asset in Iran recieves a leathal dose of Instant Sunrise(TM). To bad for Joe Blow Iranian citizen that almost all of Iran's military and infrastructure targets happen to be in or around major population centers. Them's the breaks.


As far as a terrorist group getting their hands on a nuke... Nuclear weapons are some of the most heavilly guarded items on the face of the earth. They do not simply get lost or accidently missplaced. For a terrorist group to get their hands on a nuclear device a nuclear power would have to GIVE IT TO THEM.

Fun fact about nukes... Did you know that a nuclear reactor has a "fingerprint"? It's true. Every reactor give a unique conctration of different isotopes to the material they produce. What this means is that the reactor that produced the fissile material for a device can be tracked. Even after the device has been detonated. The IAEA and the US Department of Energy havbe the reactor signatures of pretty much every single nuclear reactor in the world on file.

So with in 24hrs of a terrorist group detonating their gifted nuke, the US and the UN will know exactly who the hell gave it to them. Once the US has that information, the offending nationation has less than 30 minutes to get their affiers in order (30 minutes being the maximum amount of time a Minuteman III ICBM needs to go from silo to target from the instant the NSC gives the order).

So, no... I'm not really worried about either a rogue nation or a terrorist group.

I believe that nukes are bad. But how does the world disarm?

Simple answer is that the world doesn't disarm. It's too late, pandora done opened the box, and the cat's out of the back and heading for the hills.

At this point all we really can do is limit the number of nations that have access to nuclear weapons technology. The more players that have nukes, the more likely the scenarios I described above will happen.