Are nuclear weapons irrelevant now?
Discussion
Now that several nuclear powers are at war with non nuclear powers and are losing / not doing as well as perhaps would be expected i.e. Russia vs Ukraine and Israel & USA vs Iran, could one, with an element of ultility, forward the case that a smaller nation no longer needs to strive toward being a nuclear power but instead should put more effort into developing drone abilities (and also other non-nuclear abilities e.g. cyber-attack).
It seems that nobody can set off a nuclear weapon for fear of universal repercussions, making it, in essence worthless, however drones can be deployed anywhere-ish without too much bother.
Iran could therefore, press hard for nuclear enrichment just to give it up a the last minute as a bargaining chip that they knew was actually not worth anything anyway.
Any insights??
It seems that nobody can set off a nuclear weapon for fear of universal repercussions, making it, in essence worthless, however drones can be deployed anywhere-ish without too much bother.
Iran could therefore, press hard for nuclear enrichment just to give it up a the last minute as a bargaining chip that they knew was actually not worth anything anyway.
Any insights??
The idea of nuclear weapons is for them to be a deterrent against someone using them against you first. Mutually assured destruction means that anyone targeting these weapons against a state which is so armed, assures their own annihilation. Thus rendering the use of nuclear weapons against nuclear powers pointless.
But one nation has used nuclear force against a non-nuclear nation, and it broguth about the end of the war. So therefore, they are not entirely useless.
But whether any world leader and their military powers are willing to use nuclear force again against a nation which doesn't have one is open to debate. A few years ago, I would have said it could never happen again. Now I absolutely couldn't say that.
But one nation has used nuclear force against a non-nuclear nation, and it broguth about the end of the war. So therefore, they are not entirely useless.
But whether any world leader and their military powers are willing to use nuclear force again against a nation which doesn't have one is open to debate. A few years ago, I would have said it could never happen again. Now I absolutely couldn't say that.
LunarOne said:
The idea of nuclear weapons is for them to be a deterrent against someone using them against you first. Mutually assured destruction means that anyone targeting these weapons against a state which is so armed, assures their own annihilation. Thus rendering the use of nuclear weapons against nuclear powers pointless.
Problem is that Iran (or rather the 
s in charge) are quite happy to sacrifice their own citizens and even themselves* if it meant they could nuke Israel. Remember "We love death more than we love life" *They get their virgins in Jannah
LunarOne said:
But one nation has used nuclear force against a non-nuclear nation, and it brought about the end of the war. So therefore, they are not entirely useless.
Thats actually debated nowadays. Being Nuked didn't change the Japanese resolve. They would have carried on going.The problem was that Japan was losing ground at each end of their country. To the Americans and the Russians. It was eventually believed that if they surrendered to the Russians they'd end up becoming a communist state. And if they surrendered to the Americans. They'd probably be able to carry on in much the same traditions as before. Hence Emperor Hirohito surrendered to the Americans. And it turned out as expected (with obviously the Americans hanging around for the next few years)
LunarOne said:
But whether any world leader and their military powers are willing to use nuclear force again against a nation which doesn't have one is open to debate. A few years ago, I would have said it could never happen again. Now I absolutely couldn't say that.
it would have to be a significant threat for it to happen. Cant think of anything off the top of my head that would require that reaction against a non nuclear stateOutInTheShed said:
Mr Penguin said:
If Ukraine had nukes it would not have been invaded. If Russia didn't have nukes we would be a lot more willing to get stuck in.
Israel probably has nukes and definitely got invaded.I don't think nuking Gaza is really an option! Not to mention the nuclear fallout would affect Israel.
Timothy Bucktu said:
Mutually assured destruction should keep the nuclear threat at bay. What would worry me is if more Muslim countries gained nukes (Pakistan being the only one). Being willing to die for your religion is a worrying prospect!
I would be worried about any country led by any religious ideals and doctrine for its political direction. God cannot be criticised, killed or eliminated........
mike9009 said:
I would be worried about any country led by any religious ideals and doctrine for its political direction. God cannot be criticised, killed or eliminated........
How dare you!Dont you know the West needs those low iq people, who blindly follow a religion, to move here in their millions!
We need to have them to prove that we are racist, or not racist, I cant remember, it varies
OutInTheShed said:
Mr Penguin said:
If Ukraine had nukes it would not have been invaded. If Russia didn't have nukes we would be a lot more willing to get stuck in.
Israel probably has nukes and definitely got invaded.LunarOne said:
The idea of nuclear weapons is for them to be a deterrent against someone using them against you first. Mutually assured destruction means that anyone targeting these weapons against a state which is so armed, assures their own annihilation. Thus rendering the use of nuclear weapons against nuclear powers pointless.
How about a nice game of chess instead? (virtual pint for those who get the link 
)I was thinking recently about the effect of that Iron Dome defence thing that Israel has - where it's highly successful in taking out a lot of incoming missiles mid-air. I assume this is a relatively recent development but there will likely come a time when such as system could be capable of stopping all incoming devices from reaching their target. At that point, all the missiles, nuclear or otherwise, become obsolete so if you want to start a fight with another nation it's back to D-Day type landings and boots on the ground. A bit simplistic perhaps but there's little point maintaining a weapon that will never reach its intended target.
StevieBee said:
LunarOne said:
The idea of nuclear weapons is for them to be a deterrent against someone using them against you first. Mutually assured destruction means that anyone targeting these weapons against a state which is so armed, assures their own annihilation. Thus rendering the use of nuclear weapons against nuclear powers pointless.
How about a nice game of chess instead? (virtual pint for those who get the link )
Edited by LunarOne on Tuesday 21st April 23:36
mike9009 said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
Mutually assured destruction should keep the nuclear threat at bay. What would worry me is if more Muslim countries gained nukes (Pakistan being the only one). Being willing to die for your religion is a worrying prospect!
I would be worried about any country led by any religious ideals and doctrine for its political direction. God cannot be criticised, killed or eliminated........StevieBee said:
How about a nice game of chess instead? (virtual pint for those who get the link )
I was thinking recently about the effect of that Iron Dome defence thing that Israel has - where it's highly successful in taking out a lot of incoming missiles mid-air. I assume this is a relatively recent development but there will likely come a time when such as system could be capable of stopping all incoming devices from reaching their target. At that point, all the missiles, nuclear or otherwise, become obsolete so if you want to start a fight with another nation it's back to D-Day type landings and boots on the ground. A bit simplistic perhaps but there's little point maintaining a weapon that will never reach its intended target.
I m pretty sure they re designed to intercept icbm warheads, or mirv or whatever. )I was thinking recently about the effect of that Iron Dome defence thing that Israel has - where it's highly successful in taking out a lot of incoming missiles mid-air. I assume this is a relatively recent development but there will likely come a time when such as system could be capable of stopping all incoming devices from reaching their target. At that point, all the missiles, nuclear or otherwise, become obsolete so if you want to start a fight with another nation it's back to D-Day type landings and boots on the ground. A bit simplistic perhaps but there's little point maintaining a weapon that will never reach its intended target.
It s been an ongoing thing since the patriot system which has just been improved on over decades.
But through that time mirv now have manoeuvrability and can change direction sufficiently to cause problems.
Plus there is a chance instead that you just saturate a target more.
At one point it was space lasers to shoot at them.
It’s a never ending arms race, and the moment there is the perfect missile defence it’ll be subverted or a new delivery method created.
Ie, low level hypersonic missiles now seem a bit vogue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff