OT--Nuclear Weapons (PING: Military History Buffs)

albionmoonlight · 02-12-2003, 09:52 AM

It occurred to me this morning that, based on all of the crazy stuff going on, I will probably see a nuclear weapon used by one country against another country for the first time in my life. Then I began to wonder about what that use would mean.

I remember reading an excerpt from an article once about how the sharp distinction we make between nuclear and "conventional" weapons (the word "conventional" itself betrays how we feel about nuclear weapons) is actually something that was very consciously designed by nuclear weapon opponents after WWII. I think I remember that there were at least some people after WWII who wanted us to consider nuclear weapons as just a bigger arrow in the quiver--not different in type from other weapons, just different in size.

I am 26 years old, and I certainly grew up believing that nuclear weapons are wrong in a way beyond almost any other act of war. I also grew up believing that the use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of the world. Now, it occurs to me that if N. Korea nukes S. Korea or we nuke Iraq, or India nukes Pakistan, etc. the world will go on. It will be changed, but it will go on.

So my questions for those that study this kind of stuff--what is the history behind our perception of nuclear weapons as non-conventional? Do you agree with it? How do nuclear weapons rate on the scale of historical weapons advancements? Do you think that they will ever be used again?

Easy Mac · 02-12-2003, 09:56 AM

If a nuke is used over there by us, the world wont go on. Think of the nuclear fallout. It would drift all over the middle east, into europe, asia, russia.

China would be pretty pissed at us. The Mid-East would be pretty pissed at us. Europe would be pretty pissed at us. I really doubt the US could get away with using a nuke in that area and expect no nuclear retaliation at us.

Bee · 02-12-2003, 09:58 AM

Depends on whether it's a tactical nuke or not.

albionmoonlight · 02-12-2003, 10:00 AM

Oh--I should add, I personally am againt nuclear weapons in all instances because, now that we have the technology, we should wage war only against those who wage it against us. Not against innocent parties who happen to be in the blast radius.

WSUCougar · 02-12-2003, 10:04 AM

Nukes are not an area of expertise for me, but I'll toss in a few comments.

First, I think we'll probably see tactical nuclear weapons used before we see an ICBM delivery. That, or a terrorist act. In any case the issue with the use of nuclear weapons is that it represents an escallation of warfare. In a way, using such "weapons of mass destruction" takes the gloves off and opens Pandora's Box - anything goes. This is perception becoming reality.

Personally, I feel that the morale implications of nuclear weapons are grossly misplaced. What really rubs me is when the atomic bomb attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thrown out as these uniquely hideous and wicked acts. Certainly the power of the weapons was phenomonal (and of course the nukes of today are many times moreso), but why is the effect perceived as any different than, say, the Allied fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden? Is instant obliteration of a city worse than a firestorm that kills over 100,000? Is it the shocking effectiveness of the weapon? Is it the radiation?

They are indeed incredible weapons in terms of achieving destruction. I guess the moral bottom line is that they are too effective. Which is a paradox when you're talking about warfare.

Dutch · 02-12-2003, 10:18 AM

Firebombing is just as effective and when the fires go out, all is forgotten, enviromentally.

How long was the 5 squaremile area around the blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unsafe? I think it was a few years a least.

And now there are bombs that are thousands of times more destructive (or some such exponetial). It's just scary.

Tactical Nukes, and anything that N. Korea or Iraq could produce are much smaller and should only have a great effect on the blast area. Still not something I would like to experience.

Fritz · 02-12-2003, 10:21 AM

I think the moral stigma associated with nuclear weapon comes as a backlash to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

a few MAD links

http://www.philosophynow.demon.co.uk/MAD.htm

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...97/parrin.html

02-12-2003, 10:04 AM	#5
WSUCougar Rider Of Rohan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep	Nukes are not an area of expertise for me, but I'll toss in a few comments. First, I think we'll probably see tactical nuclear weapons used before we see an ICBM delivery. That, or a terrorist act. In any case the issue with the use of nuclear weapons is that it represents an escallation of warfare. In a way, using such "weapons of mass destruction" takes the gloves off and opens Pandora's Box - anything goes. This is perception becoming reality. Personally, I feel that the morale implications of nuclear weapons are grossly misplaced. What really rubs me is when the atomic bomb attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thrown out as these uniquely hideous and wicked acts. Certainly the power of the weapons was phenomonal (and of course the nukes of today are many times moreso), but why is the effect perceived as any different than, say, the Allied fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden? Is instant obliteration of a city worse than a firestorm that kills over 100,000? Is it the shocking effectiveness of the weapon? Is it the radiation? They are indeed incredible weapons in terms of achieving destruction. I guess the moral bottom line is that they are too effective. Which is a paradox when you're talking about warfare. __________________ It's not the years...it's the mileage.

02-12-2003, 10:21 AM	#7
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	I think the moral stigma associated with nuclear weapon comes as a backlash to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. a few MAD links http://www.philosophynow.demon.co.uk/MAD.htm http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...97/parrin.html __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster Last edited by Fritz : 02-12-2003 at 10:23 AM.

02-12-2003, 09:56 AM	#2
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	If a nuke is used over there by us, the world wont go on. Think of the nuclear fallout. It would drift all over the middle east, into europe, asia, russia. China would be pretty pissed at us. The Mid-East would be pretty pissed at us. Europe would be pretty pissed at us. I really doubt the US could get away with using a nuke in that area and expect no nuclear retaliation at us.

02-12-2003, 09:58 AM	#3
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Depends on whether it's a tactical nuke or not.

02-12-2003, 10:00 AM	#4
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	Oh--I should add, I personally am againt nuclear weapons in all instances because, now that we have the technology, we should wage war only against those who wage it against us. Not against innocent parties who happen to be in the blast radius.

02-12-2003, 10:18 AM	#6
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	Firebombing is just as effective and when the fires go out, all is forgotten, enviromentally. How long was the 5 squaremile area around the blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unsafe? I think it was a few years a least. And now there are bombs that are thousands of times more destructive (or some such exponetial). It's just scary. Tactical Nukes, and anything that N. Korea or Iraq could produce are much smaller and should only have a great effect on the blast area. Still not something I would like to experience.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)