4 ms·

Nice anti-nuke story. I know people want us to give up our Nukes, but with a host of middle eastern countries within grasp of nuclear technology, doing so would

Nice anti-nuke story. I know people want us to give up our Nukes, but with a host of middle eastern countries within grasp of nuclear technology, doing so would be asinine. Not sure. Nuclear weapons serve a purpose in war, that is to take out a large installation, an air force or a navy base, say, with just one hit. Then you send in ground troops. But whatever "host of middle eastern countries within grasp of nuclear technology" there may be, they still have no capability to invade North America. On the other hand, the United States have the capability to invade any Middle Eastern country. The scenario is very unlikely. The real risk is false alarms, and the true heroes are Vassili Archipov and Stanislav Petrov. These, and their unknown American, British, French, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Israeli counterparts.

Thrymr 13y ago
> Nuclear weapons serve a purpose in war Not really, in a tactical sense in any war short of WWIII. No one can really use them without the threat of massive reprisal. No rational player would use them to take out an air force base. Strategically, they're only really good for holding a gun to everyone's head (including your own). That can apply on a scale from the small and crazy (North Korea) to the huge, dysfunctional, and bankrupt (USSR).
- arethuza 13y ago
  "No one can really use them without the threat of massive reprisal" You can, of course, use them if your opponent is not capable of a massive reprisal - which the Soviets weren't until the late 1960s (at least against the United States). That's why Curtis LeMay, and later Thomas Powers, were so keen to land a "Sunday punch" on the Soviets - fortunately the political leaders of the US (notably JFK during the Cuban crisis) would have nothing to do with such a plan - to their eternal credit. A fairly interesting novel describing a world where LeMay had got his way is Resurrection Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day
- VLM 13y ago
  >huge, dysfunctional, and bankrupt (USSR). And the USA, to be fair.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  Not necessarily. Would the US risk a major incident with China or Russia if India and Pakistan decide to lob small nuclear warheads at each other? What if one of those powers aligned with one side or the other?
VLM 13y ago
"The real risk is false alarms," The real risk is false flag ops. Say Tel Aviv vaporizes tomorrow and no one takes responsibility. Who do we nuke? They'll be demands we blast "somebody" of course. As everyone knows, the enemy of the day would probably be Iran. Now the Iraqis have no great love of the Iranians, so the logical thing for any upwind country to do, is when they obtain a special weapon, use it to frame a downwind country that's known to be further along the process than they are. I believe this is a major part of the motivation for the Iranians to build their own nukes. Obviously their neighbors benefit by framing them, so their only hope is to build a deterrent force before they get framed. Who benefits if Pakistan and India degenerated into a limited nuke war? Well whoever that is, is somewhat likely to want to encourage it, which wouldn't take much. This is the hidden danger of the US/Russia MAD scenario, we could take onesie-twosie potshots at each other with no retribution because someone else would be blamed (probably China) The fact this fairly likely scenario hasn't played out is pretty interesting.
- hga 13y ago
  You can deduce the source of the fissionables and the design of the weapon by analyzing the isotopes left over.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    Only using science though. and Hans Blick, the UN weapons inspector, was able to determine that Saddam had no WMD capability. sadly we did not believe science, and I expect, in the afterglow of a nuclear explosion, that we shall not believe the tales told by isotopes either we are a dumb species
    - hga 13y ago
      To the best I can determine, he's a lawyer, not a scientist (no biography says what any of his non-terminal degrees were in). You're also welcome to explain what these bits from his Wikipedia entry have to do with "science": "Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission. In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."" He also famously got tricked by Sadam prior to the 1991 war ... any particular reason he should have gotten extra respect when he said the same thing again?

Thrymr 13y ago

> Nuclear weapons serve a purpose in war Not really, in a tactical sense in any war short of WWIII. No one can really use them without the threat of massive reprisal. No rational player would use them to take out an air force base. Strategically, they're only really good for holding a gun to everyone's head (including your own). That can apply on a scale from the small and crazy (North Korea) to the huge, dysfunctional, and bankrupt (USSR).

arethuza 13y ago
"No one can really use them without the threat of massive reprisal" You can, of course, use them if your opponent is not capable of a massive reprisal - which the Soviets weren't until the late 1960s (at least against the United States). That's why Curtis LeMay, and later Thomas Powers, were so keen to land a "Sunday punch" on the Soviets - fortunately the political leaders of the US (notably JFK during the Cuban crisis) would have nothing to do with such a plan - to their eternal credit. A fairly interesting novel describing a world where LeMay had got his way is Resurrection Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day
VLM 13y ago
>huge, dysfunctional, and bankrupt (USSR). And the USA, to be fair.
Spooky23 13y ago
Not necessarily. Would the US risk a major incident with China or Russia if India and Pakistan decide to lob small nuclear warheads at each other? What if one of those powers aligned with one side or the other?

VLM 13y ago

"The real risk is false alarms," The real risk is false flag ops. Say Tel Aviv vaporizes tomorrow and no one takes responsibility. Who do we nuke? They'll be demands we blast "somebody" of course. As everyone knows, the enemy of the day would probably be Iran. Now the Iraqis have no great love of the Iranians, so the logical thing for any upwind country to do, is when they obtain a special weapon, use it to frame a downwind country that's known to be further along the process than they are. I believe this is a major part of the motivation for the Iranians to build their own nukes. Obviously their neighbors benefit by framing them, so their only hope is to build a deterrent force before they get framed. Who benefits if Pakistan and India degenerated into a limited nuke war? Well whoever that is, is somewhat likely to want to encourage it, which wouldn't take much. This is the hidden danger of the US/Russia MAD scenario, we could take onesie-twosie potshots at each other with no retribution because someone else would be blamed (probably China) The fact this fairly likely scenario hasn't played out is pretty interesting.

hga 13y ago
You can deduce the source of the fissionables and the design of the weapon by analyzing the isotopes left over.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Only using science though. and Hans Blick, the UN weapons inspector, was able to determine that Saddam had no WMD capability. sadly we did not believe science, and I expect, in the afterglow of a nuclear explosion, that we shall not believe the tales told by isotopes either we are a dumb species
  - hga 13y ago
    To the best I can determine, he's a lawyer, not a scientist (no biography says what any of his non-terminal degrees were in). You're also welcome to explain what these bits from his Wikipedia entry have to do with "science": "Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission. In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."" He also famously got tricked by Sadam prior to the 1991 war ... any particular reason he should have gotten extra respect when he said the same thing again?