Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built...we spend more than $50 billion each year to maintain the nuclear arsenal.....

[Peter]

Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.

I think you drastically overestimate the effectiveness of anti-missile defences.
Even in the most optimal scenarios during US testing and against single targets missile defence systems still fail an awful lot.
During any war the opponents and you will be sending all sorts of decoys to make sure the real nukes get through.

Missile defence is nothing new and all sides have counters to that countermeasure.

 

[PirateMk1]

Ok, let's say a 50% loss rate. So 200 nukes will still let us destroy 100 cities. Yay?

It will be a loss rate of at least 1000% against active defences with a good portion going to just knocking out defences. Only one out of hundred would make it through presuming the bus gets through long range defences. One of the reasons SDI was dropped was because no matter how robust there would always be leakers given enough saturation. But you have to have the numbers of active warheads in order to saturate any defence.

 

[Peter]

Why blow up a hundred cities when you can nuke tens of thousands of them? Life's better that way...

Do you think Russia or China would contemplate an attack if you told them that a random 50% of their population would die?
You don't need to kill everyone to win.

 

[PirateMk1]

Hence the need to invest in better delivery systems, rather than a very large pool of weapons.

For every advance on one side there is reaction from the other. Numbers are required to defeat national defence systems.

 

[Court Jester]

Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built. Yet, nuclear policy decisions are limited to exclusive spaces that permit only the most privileged to have a seat at the table.

The United States spends more than $50 billion each year to maintain its nuclear arsenal in the name of "security." That spending does nothing to solve issues that threaten real human security every day, including racial injustice, economic insecurity, gun violence, police violence, the ongoing threat of pandemics, the global climate crisis, and so much more.

.... because China, Russia, and Islamic fundamentalist nations are sooooo dedicated to "justice" and liberty that we would never need an effective deterrrent to counteract the nation of evil, right?

You want to know why China will NEVER attempt to take over America?

Right here:

Because even if China or Russia got over on us in a first strike; took out our air bases, our land based silos, or our command and control. These wonderful nuclear ballistic missile subs we have which can stay deployed for extended periods of absolute stealth can eventually "return the favor" and take out our enemies---all of them. So, why would they even bother to try and destroy us?

Disarm our nukes and we will be as helpless as Tibet is--- and how the Ukraine is about to be.

 

[phoenix2020]

For every advance on one side there is reaction from the other. Numbers are required to defeat national defence systems.

No. It’s neither one nor the other. It’s about the best use of a fixed amount of money. $50B a year to maintain a stockpile that will be shot down is stupid. We should cut it in half and put that money into investing in delivery systems.

Every decision has an opportunity cost. These must be considered when defining a policy.

 

[PirateMk1]

I think you drastically overestimate the effectiveness of anti-missile defences.
Even in the most optimal scenarios during US testing and against single targets missile defence systems still fail an awful lot.
During any war the opponents and you will be sending all sorts of decoys to make sure the real nukes get through.

Missile defence is nothing new and all sides have counters to that countermeasure.

Systems have improved over the years. The numbers provide the cushion needed to be sure any retaliation we initiate will be effective, and more importantly our adversaries know the calculus too. Just having a large arsenal is a deterrent. Which is a point into and of itself.

 

[PirateMk1]

No. It’s neither one nor the other. It’s about the best use of a fixed amount of money. $50B a year to maintain a stockpile that will be shot down is stupid. We should cut it in half and put that money into investing in delivery systems.

Every decision has an opportunity cost. These must be considered when defining a policy.

Nuclear warheads and icbms and other missile type or drone type delivery systems are one way. They are munitions. Not all munitions hit their targets for whatever reason. The enemy has a say in how good our systems perform. The more ways and number of systems we can deploy the better. Numbers allow brute force tactics when there is doubt as to the effectiveness of the delivery systems. LIke Stalin said quantity is quality of its own.

 

[Peter]

Systems have improved over the years. The numbers provide the cushion needed to be sure any retaliation we initiate will be effective, and more importantly our adversaries know the calculus too. Just having a large arsenal is a deterrent. Which is a point into and of itself.

You would still have enough even after a 50% cut in numbers.
Let's just say all you did was manage to turn the 10 largest cities of any attacking nation into radioactive rubble (that's more than achievable by a single US sub) that alone would completely destroy their economy and they would end up with so many casualties the nation's hospitals would be overwhelmed for years.

Taking out just 5 UK cities would most likely completely screw us and end any military threat for a generation as we rebuild for example.

 

[phoenix2020]

Nuclear warheads and icbms and other missile type or drone type delivery systems are one way. They are munitions. Not all munitions hit their targets for whatever reason. The enemy has a say in how good our systems perform. The more ways and number of systems we can deploy the better. Numbers allow brute force tactics when there is doubt as to the effectiveness of the delivery systems. LIke Stalin said quantity is quality of its own.

You may want to quote someone who didn’t champion a system that ultimately bankrupted itself and collapsed on a global scale. Try harder.

At least try to show that you understand what opportunity costs are. If you don’t, then debating pros and cons of investing in stockpile vs delivery with you will be about as fruitful as talking to someone whose answer to every question is “yes let’s do that too!”

 

[PirateMk1]

You would still have enough even after a 50% cut in numbers.
Let's just say all you did was manage to turn the 10 largest cities of any attacking nation into radioactive rubble (that's more than achievable by a single US sub) that alone would completely destroy their economy and they would end up with so many casualties the nation's hospitals would be overwhelmed for years.

Taking out just 5 UK cities would most likely completely screw us and end any military threat for a generation as we rebuild for example.

Better to have more than enough than not enough.

 

[Peter]

Better to have more than enough than not enough.

Maybe but the US spends a ridiculous amount of money on those weapons.
Just building 4 new nuclear missile subs was a huge investment for the UK and was argued about for the best part of a decade.

 

[PirateMk1]

You may want to quote someone who didn’t champion a system that ultimately bankrupted itself and collapsed on a global scale. Try harder.

At least try to show that you understand what opportunity costs are. If you don’t, then debating pros and cons of investing in stockpile vs delivery with you will be about as fruitful as talking to someone whose answer to every question is “yes let’s do that too!”

Stalin died before height of the Soviet Union. You should know that. Yes I know what opportunity costs are. However what you are saying is let's make more effective systems. Which have a cost a potential double cost of wasted time and money. Not all new systems work as advertised. Time and material is lost in failed efforts for little gain. Slow and steady stockpiling over time of proven effective systems provide for flexibility in deployment and use of systems. This is not to say new systems shouldn't be built or developed but that it is conjunction with stockpiling and recycling older systems which can be still useful as decoys or as main weapons. The newer systems are brought online after thorough testing replacing the oldest systems that are then recycled or kept as the situation warrants. The arsenal provides an effective deterrent, much more than just having a few more effective systems which does not. Having numbers provides a doubt in an adversary that a few more effective systems never could.

 

[PirateMk1]

Maybe but the US spends a ridiculous amount of money on those weapons.
Just building 4 new nuclear missile subs was a huge investment for the UK and was argued about for the best part of a decade.

Money well spent. People know we will use them push come to shove, as we already have. Which is the best outcome from Truman dropping the bombs IMO.

 

[Razoo]

There will be no life on earth if the nuke war gets underway ............. it's over.

Project Force: Could the world survive a nuclear winter?

The consequences of a nuclear war would extend far beyond the blast itself, killing millions of people across the globe.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Michael Cole]

Russia has 6,400 nuclear warheads, a bit ahead of the US. We perpetuate assured mutual destruction. In 1986, Russia had 14,000 warheads. We have mutually reduced nuclear arsenal before and signed other WMD agreements, violating a biological weapons agreement while destroying all chemical weapons. As long as we keep open dialogue, we can make progress, however little and long it takes and temporary it may be. Not much choice.

China's arsenal is reported to be 300-350 warheads. Knowing nothing about verification, my first reflex is to say bullshit. China has much more. After settling down and remembering I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I realize there's a lot to learn from China's relatively small arsenal of nuclear warheads. How many does a country need to protect itself from the other nations combined? There are nine nuclear powers,* so I think 300 is adequate.

* US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Israel

 

[Razoo]

Firestorms triggered by burning cities create a huge plume of smoke, soot and ash. The plume rises above the clouds, into the upper atmosphere of the planet, where it will stay, encircling the globe, shielding the Earth from the Sun’s light, cooling the planet.

This is the scenario we could expect following a nuclear clash between nations.

The term nuclear winter was coined in the 1980s as scientists began to realise that the horrors of a nuclear war would not be confined to explosive blasts and radiation.

As climate prediction models become more powerful and sophisticated, scientists have been able to examine more closely what would happen in a nuclear conflict between two antagonists. In the past, most scenarios focused on potentially apocalyptic conflicts between Russia and the United States.

Anatomy of a nuclear blast​

A blast from a modern nuclear weapon would produce a vast amount of energy almost instantly. The effects would be devastating.

First, a blinding flash of light and radiation in the form of heat from the initial explosion would produce temperatures as high as that of the Sun. Wood, plastics, fabrics and flammable liquids would all ignite.

This would almost immediately be followed by the blast wave, moving at several times the speed of sound. A wall of compressed superhot air, the wave would gather up rubble and anything moveable, levelling all buildings within the blast zone and killing everyone in its path for several kilometres.

 

[Razoo]

Within 20 to 30 minutes, a shroud of highly radioactive ash would begin to fall, blanketing both the blast site and the surrounding area, tens of kilometres downwind, and very quickly killing anyone caught outdoors who had somehow managed to survive the initial explosion.

For people outside the blast zone, the situation would also be grim. All electronic equipment would cease to function as the electromagnetic pulse fried every electronic circuit. No phones, internet, computers or cars would work.

Hospitals would be quickly overwhelmed, with the vast majority of the population needing some kind of medical care. Food would disappear as logistical supply trains stopped working. What little there was would be contaminated by the radioactive fallout, along with any water.

In the case of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, for example, it is estimated that between 50 million and 125 million people would die.

What comes afterwards?​

Those would be the initial, local effects of a nuclear conflict on a population. But the ensuing nuclear winter would take it to a whole new level.

Project Force: Could the world survive a nuclear winter?

The consequences of a nuclear war would extend far beyond the blast itself, killing millions of people across the globe.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Razoo]

Darkness and starvation​

The impact of even such a “limited” nuclear conflict would be devastating for the Earth as a whole. With global dimming, harvests would fail across the planet.

Basic staples would be severely hit as one study shows that China’s wheat production would halve in the first year after a conflict, its rice production dropping by 21 percent.

The US’s corn supply would drop by as much as 20 percent. International supply chains would falter as food became scarce. Hoarding, panic buying and price gouging would become commonplace, leading to further scarcity and marginalising the world’s poor who would struggle to survive the ordeal.

In 2016, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that 815 million people were food-insecure. They would all be put at far greater risk as food supplies rapidly dwindled in the aftermath of such a conflict.

Another major, cascading effect of even a partial nuclear winter would be the depletion of the ozone layer, allowing crops to be further damaged by unfiltered hard ultraviolet solar radiation.

Ozone would be destroyed by the heating of the upper atmosphere as the darker soot-laden layer of air absorbed more solar energy. The effect would last for more than five years, with 20 percent of the ozone lost across the planet and, in some places, as much as 70 percent, leading to significant destruction of plant, marine and animal life on Earth, and resulting in skin cancers, DNA mutation and eye damage in humans and animals alike.

This, coupled with the violent competition for shrinking resources, likely civil unrest due to mass starvation, rapidly shifting weather patterns and financial collapse, would disrupt all human life with no part of the planet left unscathed.

This, coupled with the violent competition for shrinking resources, likely civil unrest due to mass starvation, rapidly shifting weather patterns and financial collapse, would disrupt all human life with no part of the planet left unscathed.

This nightmarish scenario is based on just a relatively small nuclear conflict between two minor nuclear powers who together possess 230 nuclear weapons.

By contrast, the US and Russia have a staggering 12,675 nuclear warheads between them.

They are not the only ones; China, France, the United Kingdom, Israel and North Korea also possess these deadly weapons, all able to inflict catastrophic damage on the planet.

Project Force: Could the world survive a nuclear winter?

The consequences of a nuclear war would extend far beyond the blast itself, killing millions of people across the globe.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Razoo]

bottom line = no winner aka let's stop fooling ourselves.

 

[bluesmoke]

China's arsenal is reported to be 300-350 warheads. Knowing nothing about verification, my first reflex is to say bullshit. China has much more. After settling down and remembering I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I realize there's a lot to learn from China's relatively small arsenal of nuclear warheads. How many does a country need to protect itself from the other nations combined? There are nine nuclear powers,* so I think 300 is adequate.

* US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Israel

300 is adequate against the many thousands of Russia and the US? 300 would be fine if it hit the targets aimed at. I agree China probably has more, but that our intel know how much more. Not, though, anywhere near the close to 6,000 and over 6,000 the US and Russia are said to have.

 

[Questerr]

I would rather have my tax dollars spent on something more useful such as single payer health insurance so none of us need to be concerned about how to pay for health care.

So you favor unilaterally eliminating our nuclear deterrent?

 

[Questerr]

Why are we building more? Who are we building more for? I honestly believe that all the people in the world would be happy to begin eliminating nuclear weapons. I believe that all of the people in the world could live without war.

The people do not seem to be the problem. It is the government's that believe we need war not the people so why are we building nuclear weapons? Why must there be war if the majority of human beings do not want war?

We're building more because nuclear warheads have a shelf-life and need replacement after a time.

 

[Questerr]

We don't necessarily have to get rid of them all. But do we really need thousands of them? Is there any scenario where destroying 100 cities isn't enough, and the world would be a better place if only we had more nukes than that?

This is an actual viable argument. We should move to a Credible Minimum Deterrent.

 

[Questerr]

bottom line = no winner aka let's stop fooling ourselves.

Sounds like a great reason to maintain a deterrent so other nations won't even contemplate carrying out such an attack.