As long as this never happens, of course. They're the ultimate peacekeepers. The last World War ended as the nuclear age dawned. Since then, Russia and the United States have developed a nuclear arsenal capable of ending mankind. But as long as that never happens, nuclear weapons are doing their job. War is not an option between our countries. Otherwise, a lot of us would be getting our draft cards for World War 6.
shareMAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) only works and did work as a peacekeeping force so long as the other side was sane and did not have a deathwish.
Do you think it will still work when the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world... Iran, gets the Nuke and one winds up in the hands of those screaming Allahu Akbar as they proudly blow themselves up?
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
This is always a depressing line of thought for me, especially since I seem to view this whole matter differently.
History teaches many lessons and one of them is that you cannot stop the spread of technology. From the Hittites who couldn't keep a monopoly on swords and spears made out of this new metal called iron, to the British who couldn't keep the processes and machinery of the infant Industrial Revolution to themselves, it's been tried and it's never successful.
When I was born the United States was the only nation that had the atom bomb. A year later the Soviets had it. Within a few years Britain and France joined the club. Maybe that could have been predicted back at the beginning. These were all major powers on the world stage. But who would have thought that within our lifetime, before we even grew particularly old that countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea would have nuclear weapons. It would hardly have seemed credible.
This Summer will mark the 71st anniversary of the Trinity detonation. Seventy-one years. Not so long. Considerably less than 100 years. So if we've come this far in 71 years where will we be 100 years from now?
What I think, what has long been my depressing assumption, is that 100 years from now any country that wants nuclear weapons will have them. And they won't have to build them themselves. They'll just buy them on the international market the same way they buy tanks and fighter jets today.
Depressing thought. Doesn't that greatly increase the likelihood of their being used? Yes, and I assume they will be used. It's just a matter of time.
And then what? My personal belief is that yes, they will be devastating weapons. Yes, they'll kill a lot of people. But the world will go on. For they won't turn out to be the earth shattering, civilization ending weapons as has long been feared.
***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.
Oh, boy... Do you know how many times (yes, x1, x2 and so on) the "acceptable" radiation levels have increased since the (rapid) build-up of nuclear power plants and in the wake of that (insane) decades-long nuclear testing which had been conducted... Diseases, like cancer, are running wild - worldwide. Lets not even speculate if bacteria and viruses are mutating due to that very same thing. And so on...
If we're to have ANY kind of a nuclear war - as weapons today are no longer classified in kilotons, but in megatons - there will be very little life which will keep on living on planet Earth, never mind humankind.
Carbon based biology, which is what we are, cannot and will not survive radiation poisoning which results in cellular degradation and death. What else is there to talk about.
Your information is based on hippie anti-nuke propaganda bullsh!t... not facts.
And there are very VERY few megaton weaons. The vast majority, nearly 93% of all nukes are kiloton weapons, not megaton.
The most common warhead comprising most all of the US inventory is a 475Kt weapon.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Very good, thanks!..:) I'm not sure why -exactly- I had posted without making a remark about what you said; maybe just to draw attention, heh. xD
Fact of the matter is (?!), those few megaton weapons - such as ICBMs - not to mention any "secret" hydrogen (and other!) weapons, they are x-times (meaning exponentially) stronger than the general nuclear arsenal(s); my point being that, upon deployment of just one of those multi-payload missiles... For example, you can kiss Europe good-buy. And then Asia, Africa... And Australia - and USA and Canada: how many ICBMs (out of dozens, hundreds, thousands?) would it take to turn the (vast!!) Sahara desert sand into glass?? :DD
I suppose that I wanted to convey the message: no matter WHAT hole one would crawl into and no matter HOW long they were able to stay "down there" - there would, most certainly, be nothing to come back to.
People live under the illusion that the world is a big place... Just one "push of a button" and it would all be gone. Guaranteed, heh. ;-/
Fact of the matter is (?!), - not to mention any "secret" hydrogen (and other!) weapons, they are x-times (meaning exponentially) stronger than the general nuclear arsenal(s); my point being that, upon deployment of just one of those multi-payload missiles... For example, you can kiss Europe good-buy. And then Asia, Africa... And Australia - and USA and Canada: how many ICBMs (out of dozens, hundreds, thousands?) would it take to turn the (vast!!) Sahara desert sand into glass?? :DD
those few megaton weapons - such as ICBMs
not to mention any "secret" hydrogen (and other!) weapons
my point being that, upon deployment of just one of those multi-payload missiles... For example, you can kiss Europe good-buy.
I suppose that I wanted to convey the message: no matter WHAT hole one would crawl into and no matter HOW long they were able to stay "down there" - there would, most certainly, be nothing to come back to.
People live under the illusion that the world is a big place... Just one "push of a button" and it would all be gone. Guaranteed, heh. ;-/
Ahem:
At the time of the first nuclear detonation in 1945 the world population was approximately 2.2 billion.
Today after all these weapons tests and power plant operations the world population is approximately 7.4 billion.
As for the survival of other kinds of fauna I notice that when I go shopping at my local malls I routinely see rows of people on the grassy margins offering puppies and kittens to any takers. Talk about raining cats and dogs. There's no end to it. And for flora my garden flourishes although I fight a constant battle with weeds that also thrive.
***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.
Puppies, LOL!! 🐶 🐱
shareAs horrific as that would be... that would 'only' be one nuke and 'only' be a major disaster.
MAD (as you know) is the destruction of all mankind.
Big difference.
SpiltPersonality
As horrific as that would be... that would 'only' be one nuke and 'only' be a major disaster.
MAD (as you know) is the destruction of all mankind.
Big difference.
I can see where you're coming from but my understanding of MAD wasn't equal for equal, but total annihilation of each other being guarantees.
So in the cold war era, the exchange portrayed in 'By Dawns Early Light' wasn't MAD as both 'held back' from going all out. It would still be pretty effed up, but there would be government, there would still be a country to recover. An all out war that it seems 'The Day After' portrays seems a little more like a MAD scenario. It ends too early to be sure, but you can see government failing, and the USA ceasing to exist - so having suffered 'destructiion'.
I can't see ant terrorist state being able to arrange so many nukes that the USA would be destroyed. I guess that's what I assumed you meant. The complete destruction of the USA. Indeed, with only one or two low tech nukes (that's all they would get to play with), they would only be able to get a 'Pearl Harbor-esque' result of uniting the American people. Their target would probably be Israel ANYWAY... and I COULD see a nuclear threat destroying Israel as a country.
Actually, I've heard other explanations for the phrase;
At the time MAD was coined, there was a discussion-panel explaining MAD this way: There are so many nukes on each side that even if the soviets managed to fire their missiles -without a nuclear response from the us, the reprocautions of this attack would be famine and radiation in Russia (and elsewhere), because of the fires and pollution originating from the US.
Doesn't matter if it's the right definition though, but still thought provoking.
I don't think there's any doubt atomic weapons prevented a Warsaw Pact/ NATO confrontation. And Israeli nukes have probably kept another major Mideast war (directed at them) from breaking out, to this point. India and Pakistan have not fought, despite the mutual enmity.
Going fwd, it remains to be seen. As bizarre as NK is, the leadership does not have a death wish. But if the Iranian mullahs really do buy into the 12th Mahdi prophecies? Then will get interesting in a hurry if and when they get a bomb. But that treaty is supposed to prevent such an occurrence, right?
But if the Iranian mullahs really do buy into the 12th Mahdi prophecies? Then will get interesting in a hurry if and when they get a bomb. But that treaty is supposed to prevent such an occurrence, right?
If you are referring to the treaty between US and Iran brokered by Dumb and Dumber (AKA Obama and Kerry).....
And Iran was never trying to make a nuclear bomb.
You would be the king of knowing all about that.
Still think the US military never once killed any innocent civilians in wars on countries they invaded?
You would be the king of knowing all about that.
Still think the US military never once killed any innocent civilians in wars on countries they invaded?
Iran IS a signatory to the NPT.
Iran is NOT a major threat to the U.S. It will not get a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future, if ever. And even if they did somehow get a nuke, it would almost certainly be as a deterrence.
Iran IS a signatory to the NPT.
Iran is NOT a major threat to the U.S.
It will not get a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future, if ever.
And even if they did somehow get a nuke, it would almost certainly be as a deterrence.
The closest we came to MADness was, approximately, 1982.
This was the period of "The Evil Empire" speeches by Ronald Reagan. The USSR leadership became convinced that the purpose of this was to stoke up the West to accept a first strike - and their only solution was to get there first.
The situation was defused by a defector from the USSR at the time, who managed to persuade his de-briefers of the seriousness of the situation. This directly lead to a change of tone from the Reagan, and eventually allowed Reykjavik Summit in 1986 (along with Gorbachev's policy of glasnost - although that could be a consequence).
So a virtually unknown defector saved the world?
MAD worked so long as you thought the other side was sane. If you begin to believe otherwise, then you are all in trouble.
Understanding the motives and mindset of the other side is much more valuable.
Sorry I don't have details to back up this "story" - I was told it from a pretty reliable source in the early 90s.
Actually no. That is not the closest we came.
Black Saturday is.
In a threeway unanimous decision.... ONE MAN dissented. ONE MAn and ONE VOTE stopped nuclear war.
Vasili Arkhipov
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
True
shareNuclear weapons are actually wonderful
True, but in many ways they prevented a WWIII from happening.
shareI can't deny that this is highly debatable. How many died in Stalingrad? How many at the Normandy beaches? How many in Berlin? World War 2 was the last World War, and nuclear weapons are the main factor in that.
shareI would call them the icing on the cake.
____________________________
This used to be a signature
[deleted]