Nuclear arms. Necessary evil or threat?

[bertramhall]

I would like to ask you a theoretical question about nuclear weapons. Do you consider that the world need nuclear powers in order to keep peace in the modern world so far suffering from endless conflicts and war, or, we should refuse from using it and even keeping it?

On the one hand, nuclear weapons have different purposes. The first one is to destroy strategic potential of the enemy by making a destructive attack, or simply military purpose. The second one is connected with politics: nuclear countries could prevent military aggression against another nuclear power by the threat of a damage to the enemy. (This point was officially postulated by the United States, Russia, France, and partly by Pakistan).

On the other hand there is always a risk that your nuclear arsenal could be damaged or destroyed, however, militants have always had projects to destroy military arsenal of an enemy as well as schemes to protect their ones. Here, this judgement indicates only political side of the issue while the availability of any arm in general presumes that opponent would make an attack. Today, these are only nuclear missiles that are capable to strike strategic targets of the enemy precisely. Non-nuclear aircraft, as it is well known from the mid-1940s, are not able to solve a similar problem due to opposition arm forces and air defense fighter aircraft.

So, what do you think about it?

 

[martybegan]

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be forced back in. No one would give up the weapons because if one side kept only a couple they would ruin any balance.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nukes for all. At this point that's the best you can do.

 

[occupied]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

 

[martybegan]

Nukes for all. At this point that's the best you can do.

Not really, because without 1) solid detection and control systems and 2) enough of them to be a true deterrent the is too much of a risk of accidental response or even worse, an idea in the leaders of said country that they could take out their rivals nukes in a first strike.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nukes for all. At this point that's the best you can do.

Not really, because without 1) solid detection and control systems and 2) enough of them to be a true deterrent the is too much of a risk of accidental response or even worse, an idea in the leaders of said country that they could take out their rivals nukes in a first strike.

Nukes for all, no exceptions.

 

[martybegan]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

 

[occupied]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

 

[martybegan]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

 

[occupied]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

 

[martybegan]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

 

[occupied]

The Bomb is useless if it is used, it's only purpose is to prevent invasion. The use of a nuclear device in this day and age would result in the entire world doing what it takes to destroy you.

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

 

[martybegan]

Are you really sure? The issue Israel has always had is that due to its concentrated population, a first strike could kill half their population in 20 minutes, and Iran might be crazy enough to try it and assume it could counter/absorb any retaliatory strike, and the rest of the world would see it as a "fait accompli"

It may not make sense to us, but remember, the Japanese went into WWII thinking they could win via settlement.

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

 

[occupied]

Iran sometimes acts like they might go that direction just to throw some red meat to their more militaristic supporters but their actions indicate the same siege mentality common to conservative governments everywhere. They want a Bomb for the same reason Trump wants a wall, it's politics.

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

 

[martybegan]

It's all well and good when it's just rhetoric, but rhetoric can turn into action without people realizing it. If one could ask most of those leaders on the Eve of World War I if they really expected war to happen over an assassination, they would laugh at you.

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

 

[occupied]

It is a misconception that WWI happened over an assassination, the nations of Europe were posturing and arming themselves for war before it ever happened. All of them knew war was coming, they just had no idea what it would be like with all those brand-new mechanized toys.

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

 

[martybegan]

The assassination was the match, the treaties were the fuse, and universal conscription and technology were the bomb itself. Yes, I do know the assassination was only a catalyst, not a cause, but the end result was still 4 years of war, multiple governments brought down, and an end to Europe as it was known. Not to mention the "do-over" that happened 20 years or so later.

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would like to ask you a theoretical question about nuclear weapons. Do you consider that the world need nuclear powers in order to keep peace in the modern world so far suffering from endless conflicts and war, or, we should refuse from using it and even keeping it?

There's a reason the world has not seen a major war since 1945:
Those who would engage in such wars are armed with nuclear weapons.

 

[occupied]

OK so what does this have to do with the topic at hand? In those days mass death due to warfare was still a nightmare yet to be discovered. We on the other hand have apparently come to terms with the idea that megadeaths are a useless waste and counter-productive.

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

 

[martybegan]

What is has to do with the topic at hand is my response to the concept that every country should have nukes. It pertains to the fact that one sometimes cannot anticipate what leads to war breaking out.

The issue with a country having a few nukes, and it's rival having a few nukes is that Country A may think it can eliminate Country B's nukes via first strike. The common response is "no country would consider that", but history is full of countries that went to war unprepared for the consequences.

No one can foretell the future but we are in the longest period in modern history without a major continental conflict. Iran itself had one of the bloodiest and most useless wars in history with Iraq, nothing about their actions indicate to me that they want to fight another one. They saw what we did to Iraq and are trying to get the only deterrent that might keep us from just deciding to fuck them up one day.

Which goes to show you that their thinking is off, because even without the bomb, we haven't really messed with them at all. All the bomb will do is make the other States in the area want the bomb, and then we will have a bunch of countries with small arsenals and poor warning systems in place, which is the WORST situation one can have when it comes to nukes.

We have messed with them all along by ringing their country with military bases and "standing behind Israel" when they continually issue threats of attack. In a perfect world no one would have nukes but a glance at the west seems to indicate that they offer stability and are worth more than an entire standing army when it comes to preventing war. I do not support them trying to obtain nuclear capability but I do not blame them for trying. They among all the countries of the world are at greatest risk of attack.

Actually they are pretty difficult to attack, or that would have happened already. We had massive military power next door to them twice in two decades and nothing happened to them.


The bases we have there are not strategic threats to them, neither is two carriers in the Arabian Sea. It's enough to show the flag, nothing more.

Understand that the appearance of being poised to attack is enough for their conservative government to use the apparent threat as a means to retain power. The conservative defense hawks in the US, Israel and Iran had a cozy little arrangement going where they issue threats back and forth to justify their continued positions in power. I feel that high stakes game of military build-up and rhetoric was at least as dangerous as an Iranian Bomb.

We are not "poised to attack".

And your conspiracy theory of collusion is a bit nutters.