The problem with nuclear weapons Options

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Theres two flaws to the plan.

1: You underestimate the fanatical nature of the Japanese at the time, they were told that the expected outcome was Rape, Torture, Pillage, Rape again, that their emperor is god, et cetra, and have enough farmland to sustain SOME of them. Once hunger takes out enough, the rest are just going back into isolationist mode while preparing for another suicide run. It's a no-win situation
2: How many people will die? More than the nukes killed. The nukes were a fear weapon, more than anything else, the thought of such a weapon scared the Japanese into surrender.


And that's not even mentioning the soviets would turn hokaido into another east germany or north korea, a hellhole that would take decades to turn back into part of the international society.

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 14 Jun 2015, 23:32

[Svea Rike]

Any plans to invade Japan would have involved way more casualties than the nukes. All predictions and simulations suggested it. Let's drop the hypothetical Operation Downfall scenario and return to nuclear weapons.

Another question for you: Dirty nukes; are they real? Are there really makeshift nuclear devices circulating on the black markets, and could they even be made by low-budget groups? Is there any chance ISIS could get their hands on a nuke, and if so, would a nearby nuclear power, say Israel, retaliate?

[The General]

Any plans to invade Japan would have involved way more casualties than the nukes. All predictions and simulations suggested it. Let's drop the hypothetical Operation Downfall scenario and return to nuclear weapons.

Another question for you: Dirty nukes; are they real? Are there really makeshift nuclear devices circulating on the black markets, and could they even be made by low-budget groups? Is there any chance ISIS could get their hands on a nuke, and if so, would a nearby nuclear power, say Israel, retaliate?

The problem there is your assumption that Japan would have to be invaded. Like i wrote before, they could have been blocaded, without an invasion. Maybe more would die, maybe less, but the important thing is that no matter the numbers, they'd all die because of their own decisions to continue the war.

I think they are real, and there's always a possibility of them finding their way to the extremist groups. But they can't deliver it by rocket, they have to plant it. I don't think Israel would retaliate, because they wouldn't be sure who used it. Besides, ISIS doesn't have their own territory, they occupy parts of other countries.

[3rdShockArmy]

Another question for you: Dirty nukes; are they real? Are there really makeshift nuclear devices circulating on the black markets, and could they even be made by low-budget groups? Is there any chance ISIS could get their hands on a nuke, and if so, would a nearby nuclear power, say Israel, retaliate?

Well, I've read somewhere that there are a few Soviet nukes unaccounted for during the breakup. They weren't in any of the nuclear-armed successor states stockpile (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine), and later an oligarch even claimed he had one in his basement, although it was never proven. And, just as General said, it's not all about the nuke, it's about the means to deliver it, which is not so easy. But still, it's dangerous if ISIS or someone related got the bomb, which isn't all that impossible, especially seeing how US takes care of their nukes (accidentally arming bombers with it, loosing them etc). Hell, who knows, maybe they accidentally ship one to "aid" Syrian "democratic opposition".

[Karpet]

Theres two flaws to the plan.

1: You underestimate the fanatical nature of the Japanese at the time, they were told that the expected outcome was Rape, Torture, Pillage, Rape again, that their emperor is god, et cetra, and have enough farmland to sustain SOME of them. Once hunger takes out enough, the rest are just going back into isolationist mode while preparing for another suicide run. It's a no-win situation
2: How many people will die? More than the nukes killed. The nukes were a fear weapon, more than anything else, the thought of such a weapon scared the Japanese into surrender.


And that's not even mentioning the soviets would turn hokaido into another east germany or north korea, a hellhole that would take decades to turn back into part of the international society.

1: Then they'll quickly lose their fanaticism for just a few small scraps of food. Also, they would waste their preparations on said "suicide run" because the home islands would never actually be invaded. If they get enough food to sustain themselves, then it can simply be bombed.
2: Once the hungry start starving and dying, then the war would most likely end with a surrender from those opposing the hardliners, or those with a brain once they realize "oh shit, we're all going to starve!". Frankly, it's scarier to slowly starve and rot away than be nuked.

Hokkaido would be a massive upgrade compared to the other Japanese islands, because it can and will be supplied with food, thus giving the Japanese a much better quality of life. Isolated and satisfied, the Japanese would not revolt either, so their life quality just keeps increasing, seeing as how they are open to the outside world.

[nikitazero678]

Nuclear weapons, I say, is perhaps something we humans should have never created in the first place. With the power to turn the world into a desolate, lifeless wasteland, it is a terrifying weapon of mass destruction. I want to quote my favorite YouTuber, XboxAhoy's quote in one of his videos (you can see it here):

"An unwinnable war. A futile pursuit. The only winning move: not to play. The ultimate weapon at mankind's disposal - and the first of our creations that may prove our undoing. Nuclear weapoons might be a currency of peace, but what a terrible price..."

This post has been edited by nikitazero678: 30 Jun 2016, 8:33

[Tobæ]

Since I didn't necro this thread its ok for me to post right?

Why couldn't we drop the nukes as a demonstration or even on a smaller city / town? That detonation should have the same effect as Nagasaki or Hiroshima but with less 0's.

Also the way I see it MAD doesn't work. One country may use it for their advantage. Say Russia wants to invade Ukraine. However they threaten to launch a nuke to whoever retaliates (ie USA and their allies). Russia would be free to invade Ukraine as the world is hostage to a Nuclear War (which no-one including Russia wants). Although this is quite a gutsy maneuver it is still very possible in todays world.

This post has been edited by Tobæ: 30 Jun 2016, 2:32

[3rdShockArmy]

Um, guys? Not to burst your bubble or anything, but you do realize that most of people who participated in this tread probably have grandchildren today?
Plus, the politics and all. This tread is alive only because the moderators are most likely sleeping at this moment.

[MARS]

I see no problem with this thread. Yes, it was a necro, but not a spammy one and the thread itself has a relevant subject to it. It also isn't overtly political in that it deals with the issues and history of nuclear weapons in general, with specific scenarios merely serving as examples. Personally, I don't mind if people want to continue discussing this. Since the loss of the news/politics subjects, this section has been starving for relevant discussions anyway, and I will never be the one to get in the way of them.

On the subject of MAD as commented on by Tobæ, I would say that it didn't work during the Ukrainian crisis because between Russia and Ukraine, there simply was no framework for MAD in place, at all. What does MAD require? Both sides need to have nuclear weapons, in numbers, quality and variety of delivery methods. Ukraine doesn't have any nuclear weapons as it agreed to return the stocks of the former UkSSR back to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, so when the crisis unfolded, Russia had a complete military advantage over Ukraine. At the same time, Ukraine also was NOT a NATO member and had NO mutual defence agreement with America, so not only did it have no nuclear weapons of its own, but also no nuclear-armed allies who would have been obligated by treaty to defend it. Thus, no MAD between Russia and Ukraine, the two main parties of the conflict. MAD between Russia and NATO yes, but since Ukraine was neither in nor sufficiently allied with NATO to call upon their direct support, the conflict still unfolded because Russia could be certain enough that this would not escalate to full-blown atomic warfare. The bottom line is, for MAD to work, a country either needs a credible nuclear force of its own, or it needs to be deeply integrated in a military alliance that includes nuclear powers.

This post has been edited by MARS: 30 Jun 2016, 5:50

[X1Destroy]

Nuclear weapons, I say, is perhaps something we humans should have never created in the first place. With the power to turn the world into a desolate, lifeless wasteland, it is a terrifying weapon of mass destruction. I want to quote my favorite YouTuber, XboxAhoy's quote in one of his videos.

If it wasn't nukes, it would be some form of exterminator virus, chemical weapons.

It it wasn't a 50 megatons nuclear bomb, it could have been a conventional bomb/missiles with similar destructive power, minus the radiation.

No matter the era, mankind's pursuit for destruction have no limit. Anything could have been possible.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 30 Jun 2016, 9:26

[3rdShockArmy]

I see no problem with this thread. Yes, it was a necro, but not a spammy one and the thread itself has a relevant subject to it. It also isn't overtly political in that it deals with the issues and history of nuclear weapons in general, with specific scenarios merely serving as examples. Personally, I don't mind if people want to continue discussing this. Since the loss of the news/politics subjects, this section has been starving for relevant discussions anyway, and I will never be the one to get in the way of them.

On the subject of MAD as commented on by Tobæ, I would say that it didn't work during the Ukrainian crisis because between Russia and Ukraine, there simply was no framework for MAD in place, at all. What does MAD require? Both sides need to have nuclear weapons, in numbers, quality and variety of delivery methods. Ukraine doesn't have any nuclear weapons as it agreed to return the stocks of the former UkSSR back to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, so when the crisis unfolded, Russia had a complete military advantage over Ukraine. At the same time, Ukraine also was NOT a NATO member and had NO mutual defence agreement with America, so not only did it have no nuclear weapons of its own, but also no nuclear-armed allies who would have been obligated by treaty to defend it. Thus, no MAD between Russia and Ukraine, the two main parties of the conflict. MAD between Russia and NATO yes, but since Ukraine was neither in nor sufficiently allied with NATO to call upon their direct support, the conflict still unfolded because Russia could be certain enough that this would not escalate to full-blown atomic warfare. The bottom line is, for MAD to work, a country either needs a credible nuclear force of its own, or it needs to be deeply integrated in a military alliance that includes nuclear powers.

Ok. Great. Honestly, I also miss these kinds of discussions. I just thought it's over the edge.
On-topic, I don't get it why would anyone complain about MAD, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. Neither of those countries are at war with each other (every single institution of the Ukrainian State refused to acknowledge the existence of open warfare with Russia, on the grounds that there isn't enough credible evidence). And even if there was war between them, why would we say that it was only then the MAD didn't work? Did it work when America/NATO attacked Yugoslavia? Or Libya? Or Iraq? Or many other countries?
It works both ways. The purpose of MAD isn't to prevent regional conflicts, but the big ones. And it works. The notion that the human civilization as we know it will end is a powerful deterrent. Humans would survive, especially those in the Southern Hemisphere, but the War would be a massive setback for the humans. The best estimates put the numbers of those who survived in billions, but the ensuing chaos would likely lower that down to hundreds of millions in a couple of years. Our current technological level would go down significantly and any future technological advancement would be considerably postponed, especially because most of the technological efforts are located in the northern part of Northern Hemisphere, and precisely this part would be the most affected by a nuclear war.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 30 Jun 2016, 10:12

[Tobæ]

Apologies, I don't think I explained my self properly.

First and foremost what i previously mentioned had nothing to do with the Ukraine and Russian Crisis. It was purely hypothetical.

They way I see it is, the aggressor in this hypothetical scenario - Russia (by which in all means is not related to any past or future conflict between the nations and or political/public orientations of said countries) can use MAD to its advantage. The aggressor can do this by forcing a 'clean' invasion by using their nuclear weapons as a deterrent to not only any possible global co-coalition but the world in the form of MAD. The aggressor is counting on the fact that other countries or organizations wont attack the aggressor because he will cause a nuclear war by firing his Nuclear Arsenal (at a sensitive target).
The elements of this scenario can kinda be looked at, as I said before - a (bank robbery) hostage scenario. The aggressor; (in this scenario) is Russia. The loot/ aim; the invasion of Ukraine. The hostage; global nuclear war. The aggressor's weapon; Russia's nuclear arsenal. In this scaled up version of a hostage scenario, no SWAT team is going to take down the Russian Federation and no-one is going to call Russia's bluff because the stakes are too high (MAD/Global Nuclear War). The only option left is to let Russian invade Ukraine.

This maneuverer is extremely gutsy and astronomically dangerous - but if in the future some leader is game enough - it could happen.

My point was to raise awareness that there is a way a country could use MAD to its advantage.

As I was writing this I realized that the Cuban missile crisis could tie into a scenario that uses MAD to its advantage but is much more believable to occur. Although a completely different event the soviets got a favorable outcome as USA were forced to take their missiles away from Turkey and Italy which were there before Russian moved its Missiles westward. Although Russia
This is because the nuclear threat (MAD) forced the defensive team to back off to comply or at least a favorable outcome (for the aggressor).

TL;DR MAD can be used to threaten countries.


P.S Sorry for my terrible analogy, I'm finding it difficult to express my point here.

P.P.S I'm walking on thin ice, I do not mean to offend anyone, this is just for discussion.

[MARS]

What you are saying is correct. If country A (since you said this was a hypothetical scenario, we can also stop calling them Russia and Ukraine, as this is indeed a general possibility) has nuclear weapons and country B has not, then country A can blackmail the rest of the world (including the nuclear-armed country C) into non-action by creating facts in a conflict against country B, i.e. conquering it conventionally whilst the international community can only wag fingers and condemn the entire act. The only thing that could potentially save country B from such a fate would be, if it had its own nuclear weapons or if it was a deeply integrated member in country C's military alliance, with a mutual defence clause in place that would oblige country C and other allies to help defend country B, even with C's nuclear weapons if required. A constellation like this, nuclear-armed B or B allied with C, could as a result keep A in check, due to MAD but yes, it is kind of a macabre twist that this same MAD between country's A and C will -not- save country B if it simply isn't a relevant enough ally of C, and indeed make it even possible in the first place for country A to invade B. Nuclear politics have always had a certain game theory element in them, in that for all the inhumanity and destruction it deals with, it is not a random mindless thing, but follows an internal logic of its own.

[3rdShockArmy]

I agree with your points, guys. My only disagreement is that using MAD to your advantage isn't new. Actually, every country on this planet that has been invaded ever since the Korean War, was actually a hostage of the MAD doctrine. And as long there are at least two heavily armed nuclear powers, this will be the case, regardless wether we like it or not. But, precisely these scenarios are the very purpose of the MAD. In the past, regional conflicts, even very local ones, more often than not turned into a large-scale conflict with big countries involved. Basically, if it wasn't for the MAD, every conflict since the Korean War was a potential World War and it remained regional, only due to MAD. It may seem unfair to many, but it's just how it works and until we come up with a better solution, we can only hope the MAD continues to "save" us. It is probably the most ironic thing in the history of humanity. We created the most devastating weapon in the history, but it is precisely this weapon that kept a relative peace on our planet for the last 70+ years.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 1 Jul 2016, 8:13

[Tobæ]

Even if Country B had nuclear weapons or it shared a intimate military alliance with country C, country A should still get a favorable outcome (Albie not the most favorable outcome). This is because country A is the aggressor and by using global nuclear war/MAD he can threaten and bargain with country C or B until he got a suitable outcome (as for country C or B anything is better than Global Nuclear War or an invasion of their country).

But yes you completely summed up what i was trying to say. The only way to fix this is to make nuclear weapons redundant via anti ICBM technology (and give/leak it to everyone).

[Pepo]

Without M.A.D regional conflicts will escalate quickly and we will be getting a world war in no time. M.A.D isn't good nor bad, but rather the logical conclusion of all the weapon development we had been carry out in our history. And like it or not, it probably makes for a safer world, even if that world is dominated by nuclear annihilation fear
PS: anti- ICBM missiles are not economical against modern nukes. Also if developed enough, they would put the world at risk as one side with worse technology will try to do a first strike to try to surpass the defenses

This post has been edited by Pepo: 1 Jul 2016, 18:29