• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Point of Nuclear Weapons?

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Can someone explain to me what the point of a nuclear weapon is? For Defense? Even if someone attacked us with a nuclear weapon what are we gonna do just get them back before we all die a firey death? What cases would we ever have to and want to use a nuclear weapon?
 

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you wouldn't. but neither would the other guy. nuclear weapons prevent wars, they dont start or wage them.

without nuclear weapons there is no doubt in my mind that the soviets would have invaded Western Europe. and that would have made WWII look like an opening skirmish.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
nuclear Weapons like many other weapons were designed ona flawed logic. The logic is that the weapons power is so horrible that would prevetn anybody from messing with you. The gattling gun was made on this principle and then was promptly used by the US and only made warfare more devestating.

Nobody should have these weapos. Problem is nothing will ever be done and no action by the west is credible or will be taken seriously unless they are willing to get rid of the weapons they own. Since they refuse to nobody else will get rid of theres. This is why the whole Iran thing is one big joke.

any hysteria from the US about there possible use of weapons Iran may have gets little in the way of respect.

On the other hand adding another nuke capable nation to the list is not good of course. Thats why other nations should work to deal with IRan if there truly is a problem. Or the Us could just bomb these sites right now and solve the problem instantly. The fact they havent leads me to belive the threat is fabricated.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's your basic thought process:

Early on, the technology and science to make it was discovered. THEN it was a race to be the first one with it, to then basically use it as a threatening device and possibly even to use it as the pure raw power and what could come of it probably wasn't as well known or realized.

ONCE we saw the devestation, what it truly could do...and more countries got it...things changed.

It became one of those things that "That country has it, which means if we get in a conflict with them they have the trump card...nuke". Its kind of like playing poker with someone and at any time they can declare that all thier cards are wild. If you both have that power, then it becomes a normal poker game again because if one tries to use the "everything is wild" ability then the other can and it stale mates.

So one country has it, the countries that may be near them or fearing of them will want to get it. This way they are as afraid of launching thiers, as you are of them launching thiers, because they know when they do thier having one come thier way as well.

I'm not saying its a GOOD defense, or a good thing, but its why its prolificated as it has. Its why iran wants to get a nuclear program because israel has one. Its the whole deal with pakistan and india. It is the reason for the cold war.

There is actually a theory going around scholars of weapons prolification that it could actually be BETTER for us to basically let every nation trade and create nuclear weapons and have them, thus basically "assuring" in thier mind the general thought that NO ONE will launch.

Not saying its a good theory, but its an interesting one if you want to look into it. I'll try to post in and around here more on this as i go farther in a class i'm taking currently. Its a politics of weapons prolification class and the professor is one of the most intellegent men on this subject i've ever met
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Zyphlin said:
Here's your basic thought process:

Early on, the technology and science to make it was discovered. THEN it was a race to be the first one with it, to then basically use it as a threatening device and possibly even to use it as the pure raw power and what could come of it probably wasn't as well known or realized.

ONCE we saw the devestation, what it truly could do...and more countries got it...things changed.

It became one of those things that "That country has it, which means if we get in a conflict with them they have the trump card...nuke". Its kind of like playing poker with someone and at any time they can declare that all thier cards are wild. If you both have that power, then it becomes a normal poker game again because if one tries to use the "everything is wild" ability then the other can and it stale mates.

So one country has it, the countries that may be near them or fearing of them will want to get it. This way they are as afraid of launching thiers, as you are of them launching thiers, because they know when they do thier having one come thier way as well.

I'm not saying its a GOOD defense, or a good thing, but its why its prolificated as it has. Its why iran wants to get a nuclear program because israel has one. Its the whole deal with pakistan and india. It is the reason for the cold war.

There is actually a theory going around scholars of weapons prolification that it could actually be BETTER for us to basically let every nation trade and create nuclear weapons and have them, thus basically "assuring" in thier mind the general thought that NO ONE will launch.

Not saying its a good theory, but its an interesting one if you want to look into it. I'll try to post in and around here more on this as i go farther in a class i'm taking currently. Its a politics of weapons prolification class and the professor is one of the most intellegent men on this subject i've ever met
Excellent theory...two small problems...

1) Countries will try to "leak" the nukes out of their country and then detonate them in another country and sit there with that "It wasn't ME" look.

2)In the case of Islamic extremism, which doesn't really deal with reality concepts anyway, will have the old standby..."Our dead will be martyrs because we got rid of some infidels"....So they won't care who goes up in a puff of smoke...
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,391
Reaction score
1,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First nukes didn't stop wars between for example former USSR and the USA. That they stopped was big wars that have large affect on the population of those countries and wars that threathned the security and integrigity of those country. Instead you hade alot of small wars insted in for example Corea, Vietnam and Afganisthan. And also it was a gamble because the people of the USA, Europe and USSR didn't have bloody wars like the rest of the world. But there was a risk of war and if it had happen then most of USA, Europe and USSR could have been gone and a big part of the rest of war.

But was is really silly is the number of nukes like I think USA still have 10000, because if you enemy are so crazy that you need 10000 nukes to scare him. Then you have a very big problem ecpecially in cases like then the enemy like the USSR hade almost the same number of nukes. Because for any leaders that isn't totally crazy should even less then hundred nukes be enough to scare him. And today with USA as the only superpower spending the same amount of money on the military as the ten next biggest military powers, you could be able to turn most countries into parking spaces with conventional weapons.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Those involved in the 'Manhattan Project' wish to God they had never discovered how to split the atom.

But as I've said before, the world will not be destroyed by nuclear weapons, but by a tiny microbe that rises up out of a pollutted river bed, wiping out mankind.

Just as long as the killer bees don't get me! LOL
 

thapcballa

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Location
Port Clinon, Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The point is that were goin to use them, because we probably won't. But its to show that if you push us to far this is what we can do.
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The point of any weapon is to kill people. The point of a nuclear weapon is to kill people as well, but unfortunately it was designed soley to inflict massive civilian casualties. There is nothing good about nuclear weapons just as there is nothing good about weapons in general. Its funny, the pilot of the enola gay who dropped the bomb on hiroshima lives 3 blocks away from me. He says he doesnt regret it at all and he would do it again. Can you imagine what will happen to him when he dies and goes before god?
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Almost all of the massive nukes of the cold war are gone including the insane 30 Megaton and up nuclear weapons, only the Americans and the Russians are beleived to posess anything above 10 Megatons, 10 Megatons is effectivly capable of destroying an area the size of NYC and beyond, the new idea however is to bring in BFN's Battlefield Nuclear Weapons, such as Sub-Kilotonic Nuclear weapons, such weapons have a minimal amount of radiation discharge and are aimed at destroying Army Divisions rather than cities. This is the future of nuclear weapons, as battlefield ready weapons, with the ability to be used without assuring annihilation.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
2)In the case of Islamic extremism, which doesn't really deal with reality concepts anyway, will have the old standby..."Our dead will be martyrs because we got rid of some infidels"....So they won't care who goes up in a puff of smoke...

I remember a politics professor belittling me years ago (I'm not over it yet as you can see) when I did not share his opinion that Kissinger was God, or if not God, then at least a minor diety. I don't recall my exact language, but it probably went something like this "Duuude..." (no, wait, it was further bak in time than that) make that: "Hey man -- now, like I know how Henry is this, like, super big intellectual giant and all, but isn't he maybe making just the teensiest little mistake when he assumes that everybody else is as coldly logical as he is?"

Seems that the problem with the doctrine of mutual assured destriction is it assumes people will act rationally. Plus, when one takes into account that people like Rafsanjani have come right out and said "hey -- we can destroy Israel, but they can't destroy the whole Islamic world", the whole notion of mutual assured destruction is thown out the window.

Might have to rethink this one.
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nuclear weapons prevent wars. Look at the Cold War. Niether side would invade the other or its strongest allies due to the threat of a nuclear embargo. Nuclear weapons also win wars. If you're in the midst of a war that your losing... and its an important war... a nuke is an instant victory... pretty much.
 
Top Bottom