• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So you like Nuclear power...

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Video about how close we are to war.

How much trouble would a war like in Syria happened over places which have nuclear power plants hanging about which would make great targets to deny the enemy that area?
 

WillyPete

The sound of one chao mooing.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
2,276
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Intentionally targeting these sites would likely be considered the same as a nuclear strike, triggering retaliation in kind.

Mutually Assured Destruction saves us again!
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,611
Reaction score
9,519
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Intentionally targeting these sites would likely be considered the same as a nuclear strike, triggering retaliation in kind.

Mutually Assured Destruction saves us again!

But for the losing party it might be worth it

If a large power invaded a smaller power and was winning the war, likely being able to take over the country. The smaller power would have nothing to lose in striking a nuclear power plant in the larger country, especially if it is located near their capital
 

WillyPete

The sound of one chao mooing.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
2,276
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But for the losing party it might be worth it

If a large power invaded a smaller power and was winning the war, likely being able to take over the country. The smaller power would have nothing to lose in striking a nuclear power plant in the larger country, especially if it is located near their capital

That's unlikely to do more than extend a conflict they are already losing, justify massive retaliation, and mark the losing government as war criminals in the process. Where's the upside?

Also, modern military doctrine calls for air forces to be suppressed first, so it's unlikely a losing side would have much left in the way of aircraft or missiles that they could use for this strike. There's other options, I suppose, but they really only occur in Tom Clancy novels. Goodness knows the U.S has reamed plenty of smaller nations, and yet this scenario has never played out in reality.

MAD does depend on governments acting in their own best interests, so if a nation's government has gone completely irrational, then your scenario is certainly possible. I expect the aftermath would stand as an impressive example of why it's a bad idea to allow your government to get that far off the reservation.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,611
Reaction score
9,519
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's unlikely to do more than extend a conflict they are already losing, justify massive retaliation, and mark the losing government as war criminals in the process. Where's the upside?

Also, modern military doctrine calls for air forces to be suppressed first, so it's unlikely a losing side would have much left in the way of aircraft or missiles that they could use for this strike. There's other options, I suppose, but they really only occur in Tom Clancy novels. Goodness knows the U.S has reamed plenty of smaller nations, and yet this scenario has never played out in reality.

MAD does depend on governments acting in their own best interests, so if a nation's government has gone completely irrational, then your scenario is certainly possible. I expect the aftermath would stand as an impressive example of why it's a bad idea to allow your government to get that far off the reservation.

Beyond the US, not many countries would have the air power to eliminate an enemy's air force and potential missile forces very early in a conflict.
 

WillyPete

The sound of one chao mooing.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
2,276
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Beyond the US, not many countries would have the air power to eliminate an enemy's air force and potential missile forces very early in a conflict.

I'm working from your scenario, where one side has already dominated the other.

Sure, there could be a window of opportunity before they hid whatever remained of their air force in bunkers, but that wouldn't allow them to avoid the other consequences of such a strike.

My understanding is that the politicians behind a losing war are typically far more interested in saving their own skin than they are in petty revenge, so this idea just doesn't seem very plausible unless the leadership is completely unhinged, which is again far more common in popular entertainment than reality.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,611
Reaction score
9,519
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm working from your scenario, where one side has already dominated the other.

Sure, there could be a window of opportunity before they hid whatever remained of their air force in bunkers, but that wouldn't allow them to avoid the other consequences of such a strike.

My understanding is that the politicians behind a losing war are typically far more interested in saving their own skin than they are in petty revenge, so this idea just doesn't seem very plausible unless the leadership is completely unhinged, which is again far more common in popular entertainment than reality.

My scenario was not one of current domination, but of likely domination. Ie Russia vs Ukraine, Russia is likely to win if it invaded, it would not be domination in the first week or so, as the Ukraine is large has some AA capability and could hold off Russia for a few weeks at least Destroying a nuclear power plant near Moscow or another major city could force Russia to withdraw its forces as it deals with the nuclear power plant destruction. The Ukraine did not nuke any part of Russia, so the use of Nukes by Russia would not be acceptable internationally, so Mad in that situation may not really apply. Also the use of nukes beyond tactical nukes would get rid of the reason the invasion took place in the first place
 

WillyPete

The sound of one chao mooing.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
4,495
Reaction score
2,276
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My scenario was not one of current domination, but of likely domination. Ie Russia vs Ukraine, Russia is likely to win if it invaded, it would not be domination in the first week or so, as the Ukraine is large has some AA capability and could hold off Russia for a few weeks at least Destroying a nuclear power plant near Moscow or another major city could force Russia to withdraw its forces as it deals with the nuclear power plant destruction. The Ukraine did not nuke any part of Russia, so the use of Nukes by Russia would not be acceptable internationally, so Mad in that situation may not really apply. Also the use of nukes beyond tactical nukes would get rid of the reason the invasion took place in the first place

Do you honestly think they could irradiate part of a major city, and then squirm out of the consequences by parsing language?

If they intended to cause a nuclear event as an act of war then MAD would absolutely apply. Russia (or anyone else) would be justified in responding in kind, which makes it quite clearly a bad idea for anyone that wants what's best for the Ukraine.

They might decide not to, so as to not make a bad situation worse (and because you couldn't pull that stunt off twice,) but they'd be justified in anything up to a proportional nuclear strike, which leaves a lot of wiggle room for extremely brutal reprisals.

The international community should rally together around such an event, and if they failed to support Russia in that situation it would show MAD as a lie, and make the entire world less stable.

This is the type of incident MAD has successfully prevented (so far.) The rule is simple: It is unacceptable to initiate a nuclear exchange, regardless of the underlying details.

It's a bit convoluted and definitely terrifying, but it works.
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,960
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Intentionally targeting these sites would likely be considered the same as a nuclear strike, triggering retaliation in kind.

Mutually Assured Destruction saves us again!

Humans by nature are evil. That is why they need to be saved and given good natures by Jesus. Wars will only increase until Jesus returns and people and nations which disarm themselves are only making themselves vulnerable to barbarians who have no intention of disarming themselves.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Video about how close we are to war.

How much trouble would a war like in Syria happened over places which have nuclear power plants hanging about which would make great targets to deny the enemy that area?

We agree on something! Anybody who thinks nuclear power is the answer, should read this about the wastes.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/022/30022671.pdf

Especially 6-16 (Cesium) and 7-13 (Strontium). These wastes are very real, and they are the reason for the 1000 sq mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl. And don't kid yourself - they're also all around Fukushima...
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,067
Reaction score
4,076
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Humans by nature are evil. That is why they need to be saved and given good natures by Jesus. Wars will only increase until Jesus returns and people and nations which disarm themselves are only making themselves vulnerable to barbarians who have no intention of disarming themselves.

Why is your dead imaginary friend is better than anyone elses for this ? :roll:
 
Top Bottom