Nuclear Weaponry: Effective deterrent or not?

Mordo · April 29, 2015, 12:46:00 PM

One of the main talking points in the upcoming UK general election is whether Trident (a military programme that encapsulates the development of the UK's nuclear arsenal) should be renewed or scrapped. The far left parties such as SNP, Plaid and the Greens would cream their pants if they saw it scrapped, whereas the three main political parties (Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems) are either renewing or increasing spending, and UKIP of all parties, would see a cutback in the amount of submarines deployed. I currently have mixed opinions.

My question to serious is whether nuclear weaponry is indeed, an effective deterrent against the prospect of another war, or is it simply a charade governments use to parrot the notion that it keeps us secure?

Sandtrap · April 29, 2015, 12:50:37 PM

It's effectively a gridlock. Even if, there's a war going on somewhere, they won't fire the nukes. Because if they did, everybody would. The country being hit, if capable, would send them back.

Mistakes and jumping the gun with other countries could easily be made when a projectile is spotted travelling through airspace. Russia, for instance.

In order for any country to fire their nukes, it would have to inform all others first. Which would, essentially sink the firing under lines of red tape and arguing.

So, no.

Nuclear devices don't stop wars. They stop themselves. They only stop other people from firing theirs. Conventional war can still easily occur because nobody in their right mind would ever fire because of the return volley. But there's too many ties and interconnected supply lines nowadays for conventional war to be considered.

More Than Mortal · April 29, 2015, 12:52:31 PM

Yes. Mutually assured destruction is a genuinely beautiful system.

Even if it weren't, I still wouldn't follow in the bastard footsteps of Nicola Sturgeon and her promises to gut the military if we don't remove Trident.

Turkey · April 29, 2015, 12:56:47 PM

Sure, we'll disarm our nukes, as long as everyone else goes first.

OT: I think nuclear deterrence is hugely successful. The ballistic submarine fleet alone is the best assurance that we will never see a total war again.

The Lord Slide Rule · April 29, 2015, 03:56:14 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on April 29, 2015, 12:50:37 PM

It's effectively a gridlock. Even if, there's a war going on somewhere, they won't fire the nukes. Because if they did, everybody would. The country being hit, if capable, would send them back.

Mistakes and jumping the gun with other countries could easily be made when a projectile is spotted travelling through airspace. Russia, for instance.

In order for any country to fire their nukes, it would have to inform all others first. Which would, essentially sink the firing under lines of red tape and arguing.

So, no.

Nuclear devices don't stop wars. They stop themselves. They only stop other people from firing theirs. Conventional war can still easily occur because nobody in their right mind would ever fire because of the return volley. But there's too many ties and interconnected supply lines nowadays for conventional war to be considered.

that was the point of the proliferation.

We thought the Germans were building them so we built them hoping to keep them from firing them at us. When we found out we were the only ones that had them we figured why not use them to avoid a messy invasion. Russia built them to keep us from firing them and so on and so on.

However I do think they played a part in avoiding major conflicts between superpowers in the following decades, hence proxy wars during the cold war.

Fact remains though that mistakes can be made and both parties came close several times just from near accidents.

Word Wizard · April 29, 2015, 04:01:04 PM

As long as all those with nukes are some what sane then yes.

gats · April 29, 2015, 04:16:32 PM

Well are we talking solely about nuclear bombs or a wider selection like depleted uranium shells and so on and so on.

I understand having nuclear weapons as a deterrent and I see no problem with it however I do not support the use of nuclear munitions at all. They were used in Fallujah by the US and babies are still being born with deformities. Fuck that man

Kernel Kraut · April 29, 2015, 05:16:49 PM

Ask your self this.

Has there be a major land war between any Nuclear powers since the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

King pesto · April 29, 2015, 05:56:52 PM

Between states, yes. As insane as world leaders can be, they like being powerful and will never risk total annhilation.

Non-state actors, though, are a big hole in it. Were religious radicals or some deniable black ops cell to make use of one of these devices, you'd have a real mess on your hands.

big sponge · April 29, 2015, 06:36:22 PM

Mutually assured destruction only works as long as everyone is playing the game. You get one entity that doesn't give a fuck and then the nukes start flying.

Super Irish · April 29, 2015, 06:37:48 PM

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on April 29, 2015, 05:16:49 PM

Ask your self this.

Has there be a major land war between any Nuclear powers since the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Nope, pretty much because we've seen the destruction, know the after-effects, and are scared shitless by it.That said, I think it's...paradoxical? We have them to stop a war, but no-one wants a war because of them.

Hell, I need to go over this again... We have weapons of mass destruction...to stop war?

Camnator · April 29, 2015, 06:38:41 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

The Lord Slide Rule · April 29, 2015, 06:57:05 PM

Quote from: LC on April 29, 2015, 06:36:22 PM

Mutually assured destruction only works as long as everyone is playing the game. You get one entity that doesn't give a fuck and then the nukes start flying.

this a legitimate concern

religious zealots w/ no regard for life for example

Camnator · April 29, 2015, 07:04:21 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

The Lord Slide Rule · April 29, 2015, 07:11:54 PM

Quote from: Camnator on April 29, 2015, 07:04:21 PM

Quote from: SexyBarracuda on April 29, 2015, 06:57:05 PM
Quote from: LC on April 29, 2015, 06:36:22 PM
Mutually assured destruction only works as long as everyone is playing the game. You get one entity that doesn't give a fuck and then the nukes start flying.
this a legitimate concern

religious zealots w/ no regard for life for example

Are they really going to have access to any significant nuclear weapon? They still know we'd immediately wipe them out.

see here's the thing a terrorist cell can, if it gets hold of a nuclear device, even a small one like a suitcase nuke, use it and not have that use attributed to another state. Responding in kind would be diplomatically troublesome and we'd probably end in another extended, difficult conflict like Afghanistan.

They probably also don't care they just want infidels to die.

Camnator · April 29, 2015, 07:21:04 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Kernel Kraut · April 29, 2015, 09:02:26 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on April 29, 2015, 06:37:48 PM

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on April 29, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Ask your self this.

Has there be a major land war between any Nuclear powers since the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Nope, pretty much because we've seen the destruction, know the after-effects, and are scared shitless by it.That said, I think it's...paradoxical? We have them to stop a war, but no-one wants a war because of them.

Hell, I need to go over this again... We have weapons of mass destruction...to stop war?

It's an insurance policy. Because all Nuclear armed nations know the consequences of using the weapons in war. It is a bit paradoxical, but you can't argue it's effectiveness. No one wants Nuclear war. Well, save for maybe Pakistan. Their border conflicts with India really push the envelope. If we see another Nuclear weapon used in anger, it will be in the Middle East or India/Pakistan