5 ms·

Serious , but somewhat rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer, certainly not a simple answer. Why just nuclear weapons? Shouldn't the scope be wider, s

Serious , but somewhat rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer, certainly not a simple answer. Why just nuclear weapons? Shouldn't the scope be wider, say all weapons of mass destruction? But even then, conventional weapons become weapons of mass destruction when used in massive quantities (e.g.: massive aerial bombing during WWII). So in a world without nuclear weapons, wouldn't state actors just go back to doing things nuclear weapons do but with conventional weapons?

diggan 9y ago
My uneducated guess would be because of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons compared to traditional weapons.
24gttghh 9y ago
Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have the distinct ability to have lasting effects on the area/population they are used on. "Conventional" weapons have their immediate effect (death, destruction) and then that's it. The fact that some of us are able to at least try to limit their use is great considering humanity's track record... Of course this is all generally speaking, as each class of weapons have effects that last shorter or longer than others within even the same class. e.g. nuclear air-burst has less fallout than a ground-burst. Some chemical weapons break down fairly quickly and become inert, while others linger, etc. Then you have to consider cluster munitions and land mines, which while apparently conventional, are quite indiscriminate and also can linger for decades. These devices have also been more successfully restricted than other conventional weapons.
- Retric 9y ago
  Continuing that line of thinking, mine fields are also prohibited.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    However, the US continues to use cluster-style munitions in it's conflicts, which end up creating a veritable mine field of un-exploded ordinance. To clarify, it appears we will stop using such ordinance which leaves >1% un-exploded as of next year. [0] Considering such devices have hundreds of individual munitions, that is still not something I would consider "safe". [0]http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%20Cluster%20Munitions.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%...
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      It should be major point of shame for the US that they haven't signed the treaty to ban land mines. When you go to Cambodia or Laos you quickly see how evil these mines are.
- xorfish 9y ago
  What is the lasting effect of nuclear weapons? Residual radiation and fallout will hardly affect the land if the warhead is detonated high in the air like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The fallout relative to the explosion radius is also smaller with a thermonuclear weapon. The number of people that die from higher cancer risk due to radiation is actually lower with a typical thermonuclear weapon because the lethal blast radius is bigger. So I don't think the lasting effect on the population is a good argument against nuclear or at least thermonuclear weapons. My view is that nuclear weapons are really dangerous because you don't need a lot of resources to deploy them and the high density of destructive power. It is much easier to "lose" 1MT worth of TNT with a nuclear warhead than with conventional bombs. It is also easier to deploy that 1MT worth of TNT if it is just one bomb. A mistake with a nuclear weapon can also cause a nuclear war. Now it isn't a single nuclear warhead against 100k conventional bombs, it is thousand nuclear weapons against maybe a few million conventional bombs.
  - Tepix 9y ago
    A couple 100,000 dead people are a lasting effect.
jrimbault 9y ago
Are there "conventional" weapons capable of leveling cities/regions, buildings and all ?
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Incendiary bombs used against Germany[0][1] and Japan[2] arguably caused more death and destruction in single air-raids than the singular nuclear attacks on Japan; albeit with a use of greater manpower in the attacks themselves. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II#Battle_of_Hamburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_Wa... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#The_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Meetinghouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee...
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    How would it compare to modern fission-fusion bombs ?
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      We're talking orders of magnitude higher yields in modern nuclear weapons compared to the first ones which were roughly comparable to entire air armada's of bombers at the time. There was a post to HN earlier this year of a site that would estimate damage and allow you to customize the yields, burst-height, prevailing winds, etc. I did not bookmark it as the results are too terrifying.
      - jrimbault 9y ago
        Found it. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
- trgv 9y ago
  If you use enough of them, of course.
mikeash 9y ago
Conventional weapons cannot destroy every population center in a large country in 30 minutes. You're right that WWII conventional bombing campaigns visited total destruction on cities to an extent that sometimes rivaled or surpassed what happened in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But there are two key differences. One is that those campaigns required hundreds of bombers and a near total effort from the Allied air forces to destroy one city. With nuclear weapons, that turns into hundreds of cities destroyed at once. The other is that nuclear weapons have become much smaller and much more powerful. A conventional bombing raid could match the devastation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but could never come close to the devastation something like a W88 would cause to a major city. The bombs used on Japan barely fit in the largest bomber of the era, but a modern bomb can fit a dozen on a single missile. A single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine carries nearly 200 bombs. It could create an order of magnitude more destruction than all bombing raids of WWII combined (including the nuclear ones) less than an hour after being given the order. The US Navy operates 14 of them, and that's just one weapons system operated by one country. Conventional weapons cannot do the things nuclear weapons do, not even close.
- pizzetta 9y ago
  Also, Conventional weapons take great effort. One guy in N Korea with a nuclear weapon at his disposal vs Cuba and no nuclear weapon and we can see how difficult it is to imagine Cuba posing a real destabilizing threat vs N Korea. W/o nuclear weapons, N Korea, in order to invade S Korea and overwhelm it would need millions of troops clothed and fed for months, logistical support, etc. A couple of bombs and the same is achieved without spending billions a month in maintaining troop and armaments levels.

diggan 9y ago

My uneducated guess would be because of the long-term effects of nuclear weapons compared to traditional weapons.

24gttghh 9y ago

Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have the distinct ability to have lasting effects on the area/population they are used on. "Conventional" weapons have their immediate effect (death, destruction) and then that's it. The fact that some of us are able to at least try to limit their use is great considering humanity's track record... Of course this is all generally speaking, as each class of weapons have effects that last shorter or longer than others within even the same class. e.g. nuclear air-burst has less fallout than a ground-burst. Some chemical weapons break down fairly quickly and become inert, while others linger, etc. Then you have to consider cluster munitions and land mines, which while apparently conventional, are quite indiscriminate and also can linger for decades. These devices have also been more successfully restricted than other conventional weapons.

Retric 9y ago
Continuing that line of thinking, mine fields are also prohibited.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  However, the US continues to use cluster-style munitions in it's conflicts, which end up creating a veritable mine field of un-exploded ordinance. To clarify, it appears we will stop using such ordinance which leaves >1% un-exploded as of next year. [0] Considering such devices have hundreds of individual munitions, that is still not something I would consider "safe". [0]http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%20Cluster%20Munitions.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%...
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    It should be major point of shame for the US that they haven't signed the treaty to ban land mines. When you go to Cambodia or Laos you quickly see how evil these mines are.
xorfish 9y ago
What is the lasting effect of nuclear weapons? Residual radiation and fallout will hardly affect the land if the warhead is detonated high in the air like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The fallout relative to the explosion radius is also smaller with a thermonuclear weapon. The number of people that die from higher cancer risk due to radiation is actually lower with a typical thermonuclear weapon because the lethal blast radius is bigger. So I don't think the lasting effect on the population is a good argument against nuclear or at least thermonuclear weapons. My view is that nuclear weapons are really dangerous because you don't need a lot of resources to deploy them and the high density of destructive power. It is much easier to "lose" 1MT worth of TNT with a nuclear warhead than with conventional bombs. It is also easier to deploy that 1MT worth of TNT if it is just one bomb. A mistake with a nuclear weapon can also cause a nuclear war. Now it isn't a single nuclear warhead against 100k conventional bombs, it is thousand nuclear weapons against maybe a few million conventional bombs.
- Tepix 9y ago
  A couple 100,000 dead people are a lasting effect.

jrimbault 9y ago

Are there "conventional" weapons capable of leveling cities/regions, buildings and all ?

24gttghh 9y ago
Incendiary bombs used against Germany[0][1] and Japan[2] arguably caused more death and destruction in single air-raids than the singular nuclear attacks on Japan; albeit with a use of greater manpower in the attacks themselves. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II#Battle_of_Hamburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_Wa... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#The_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Meetinghouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee...
- jrimbault 9y ago
  How would it compare to modern fission-fusion bombs ?
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    We're talking orders of magnitude higher yields in modern nuclear weapons compared to the first ones which were roughly comparable to entire air armada's of bombers at the time. There was a post to HN earlier this year of a site that would estimate damage and allow you to customize the yields, burst-height, prevailing winds, etc. I did not bookmark it as the results are too terrifying.
    - jrimbault 9y ago
      Found it. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
trgv 9y ago
If you use enough of them, of course.

mikeash 9y ago

Conventional weapons cannot destroy every population center in a large country in 30 minutes. You're right that WWII conventional bombing campaigns visited total destruction on cities to an extent that sometimes rivaled or surpassed what happened in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But there are two key differences. One is that those campaigns required hundreds of bombers and a near total effort from the Allied air forces to destroy one city. With nuclear weapons, that turns into hundreds of cities destroyed at once. The other is that nuclear weapons have become much smaller and much more powerful. A conventional bombing raid could match the devastation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but could never come close to the devastation something like a W88 would cause to a major city. The bombs used on Japan barely fit in the largest bomber of the era, but a modern bomb can fit a dozen on a single missile. A single Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine carries nearly 200 bombs. It could create an order of magnitude more destruction than all bombing raids of WWII combined (including the nuclear ones) less than an hour after being given the order. The US Navy operates 14 of them, and that's just one weapons system operated by one country. Conventional weapons cannot do the things nuclear weapons do, not even close.

pizzetta 9y ago
Also, Conventional weapons take great effort. One guy in N Korea with a nuclear weapon at his disposal vs Cuba and no nuclear weapon and we can see how difficult it is to imagine Cuba posing a real destabilizing threat vs N Korea. W/o nuclear weapons, N Korea, in order to invade S Korea and overwhelm it would need millions of troops clothed and fed for months, logistical support, etc. A couple of bombs and the same is achieved without spending billions a month in maintaining troop and armaments levels.