![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
|
Nuclear Weapons?
Do we (The USA) need ANY Nuclear weapons? Seriously - under what circumstances is it okay in this day and age to use them? Personally, being out of the cold war and all - haven't we out grown them? I don't think anyone on the planet would forgive anyone for using them. Be they Palestine, India, N. Korea or anyone else for that matter... Why do we need them if we would never use them? ![]()
__________________
-The Mikester I heart Boobies |
||
![]() |
|
Too big to fail
|
Because the Evildoers have weapons of Mass Destruction (TM), you see, and to defend freedom we have to have (meanwhile, men in dark suits quietly whisk the whiney liberal "illegal combatant" off to Gitmo.)
__________________
"You go to the track with the Porsche you have, not the Porsche you wish you had." '03 E46 M3 '57 356A Various VWs |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,580
|
Deterrence...Mutually Assured Destruction.
As horrible a principle as MAD is, it's still a valid strategy. Of course, as nation-states become less of a security risk and decentralized terrorist cells become more of a threat, this may fall apart. It's tough to threaten to nuke 96 cells in 12 countries. EDIT - (snipped out a smartassed comment - sorry Thom.)
__________________
993 Last edited by cowtown; 06-01-2004 at 08:43 AM.. |
||
![]() |
|
Super Jenius
|
I think the necessity of massive, city-erasing nukes has slackened some, sure. But other, tactical, battlefield nukes are more and more an ace card we really should have, IMHO.
JP
__________________
2003 SuperCharged Frontier ../.. 1979 930 ../.. 1989 BMW 325iX ../.. 1988 BMW M5 ../.. 1973 BMW 2002 ../..1969 Alfa Boattail Spyder ../.. 1961 Morris Mini Cooper ../..2002 Aprilia RSV Mille ../.. 1985 Moto Guzzi LMIII cafe ../.. 2005 Kawasaki Brute Force 750 |
||
![]() |
|
Too big to fail
|
Colin: your answer is perfectly valid, and in light of the (IMHO) obvious-ness of such, I responded in a humorous manner. Well, that and I'm a natural born smartass.
OTOH, I don't think there's a need to continually stockpile new weapons - that's plain pork, pure and simple. I have an idea for a 'conflict test' for US intervention abroad: Are we pissed at them enough that we could justify microwaving them? If so, nuke 'em; if not, leave 'em be. Might seem overly simplistic, but I can't help but wonder what $1B/week could do to our domestic infrastructure.
__________________
"You go to the track with the Porsche you have, not the Porsche you wish you had." '03 E46 M3 '57 356A Various VWs |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,580
|
Quote:
__________________
993 |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
|
I don't know...
I just was musing really - I don't know that we should really totally disband our program. I don't think new large scale weapons are needed. Small scale weapons, if they are clean could be useful but at what risk? Mutually Assured destruction... Just a thought I had today, not really sure of what side I'm on.
__________________
-The Mikester I heart Boobies |
||
![]() |
|
drag racing the short bus
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Location, Location...
Posts: 21,983
|
There definitely once was a place for nuclear weapons when we were threatened by the Soviets after WWII and up until their infrastructure collapsed. I agree with JP that right now, tactical nukes are more the battlefield de riguer. They can send a message. And I'm not entirely unsure we haven't used them already - some of those plumes in Afghanistan and Iraq were fairly large.
However, it could be that the need for nuclear weapons may diffuse itself, since the current trend of enemy, particularly with al Queda, no longer constitutes a single cohesive body or country, but disparate individuals all over the world. In short, because terrorism is our biggest threat, yes, one can nuke Iran. But terrorism and its ideology is widespread, even into our country. So while we nuke Tehran, I believe we'd have a problem nuking, say, Topeka, KS.
__________________
The Terror of Tiny Town |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,612
|
I am all in favor for keeping our existing nukes. For one, I prefer to have the warheads in a secure missile silo than stockpiled in some warehouse where they can be more easily "misplaced".
__________________
Neil '73 911S targa |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,580
|
I really can't see battlefield nukes ever being used either, barring some desperate "USA is going to disappear unless we do this" type of threat.
Nukes carry so much political and environmental baggage (both perceived and real) that the stakes would have to be a lot higher that just catching a guy in a mountain, IMO. ICBMs at least fit into the MAD idea in a way that battlefield weapons don't - Launch a battlefield nuke, and you get all the public outrage an ICBM would cause, and you probably could have done the job with conventional weapons anyway. And battlefield weapons don't deter countries like the big missiles do (or did, anyway).
__________________
993 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
I think another question could be "Why does the U.S. need to have sufficient stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons to kill every human on earth?"
__________________
techweenie | techweenie.com Marketing Consultant (expensive!) 1969 coupe hot rod 2016 Tesla Model S dd/parts fetcher |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 9,111
|
Nuclear weapons have been rendered less important, because of the precision weaponry now. But, nuclear weapons are here and will stay. In the near future the U.S. and other western countries will have to maintain a stockpile as a phychological deterrent for China. As China grows in strength, nuclear power will be important, since China can field a huge army that could occupy large areas and demand huge armies to combat. Maybe China will be less trying in 50 more years, but as it grows and the present leadership and government run their courses, they will try to exert their will where they can. I'm hopeful the future will bring an economic reality that will cause all nations to forgo war for negotiation and arbitration.
__________________
Marv Evans '69 911E |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Super Jenius
|
Colin -
One advantage to battlefield nukes is that it will destroy, utterly and finally, any biotoxic/chemical/radiological threats in the blast radius. I think the "baggage" as you call it is more perceived than real right now, but I can't quote chapter and verse the sources that have led me to that conclusion. Our newer weapons are very "clean" compared to what we've had in the past. As the missile defense system matures, the ICBMs will become dinosaurs and likely largely de-commissioned or replaced with space-based and/or smaller yield weapons (we always had the advantage of accuracy of the Soviets' advantage of lifting power). It IS expensive to maintain these weapons in a ready state (tritium is not long-lived in effective dosages) but not so much so I'd abandon these weapons just yet. I think Bush the Elder's comment after the Gulf War that in no circumstances would he ever have used nukes did not help us. A key element of nukes' efficacy-in-their-silos is your enemies' belief that you can and will use them -- maybe even be itching for a reason to use them. When W declared that states that harbor/aid/abet terrorists will be considered enemies as though they were terrorists themselves, in a sense that provides a new strategic target list. NOT that I'm advocating raining MIRVs onto Tehran or Damascus, but certain of the terror sponsors' (remote) secret facilities might host a display of fission and will. In the next 10-12 years there will be a nuclear weapon used in anger. JP
__________________
2003 SuperCharged Frontier ../.. 1979 930 ../.. 1989 BMW 325iX ../.. 1988 BMW M5 ../.. 1973 BMW 2002 ../..1969 Alfa Boattail Spyder ../.. 1961 Morris Mini Cooper ../..2002 Aprilia RSV Mille ../.. 1985 Moto Guzzi LMIII cafe ../.. 2005 Kawasaki Brute Force 750 |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
I am not totally averse to using them but I still think that as a nation we would put outselves into more turmoil than we see over this war in Iraq.
__________________
-The Mikester I heart Boobies |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
deterrents are only good if you *use* them every once in a while. Obviously we need to nuke someplace just to show off a bit and flex our muscles. How about the Falkland Islands?
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
I am suprised that anyone would be so trusting as to get rid of our nuclear weapons while Russia retains hers and both China and South Korea have serious development programs.
__________________
74 Targa 3.0, 89 Carrera, 04 Cayenne Turbo http://www.pelicanparts.com/gallery/fintstone/ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" Some are born free. Some have freedom thrust upon them. Others simply surrender |
||
![]() |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I don't think the threat would come from for example Russia. However the US still need nuclear weapons. If country X has nuclear weapons and the US doesn't have any then it's just a matter of time till some crazy fanatic country bombs away. The only thing that'll keep such a nutball state from pressing the buttom is the knowledge that they themselves would be bombed.
There are plenty of countries in the world who'd happily use nuclear weapons in case they thought themselves safe. |
||
![]() |
|