Nuuuuukes!

[Davrel]

Howdy people!

I'm just trying to finish an essay for university and I'm having difficulty coming to a conclusion. Outline: I'm trying to explain the effect and effectiveness of nuclear weapons. The following is what I've come up with so far and I'm not entirely sure if it even makes sense (it's late here):

"The final conclusion that I come to is a paradox. Nuclear weapons are such an effective deterrent that they are never likely to be intentionally used again. The extraordinary efficacy of their deterrent means that the power of such weapons is ultimately: redundant. If their power is redundant, then they cannot be a threat.

As a result, nuclear weapons are both incredibly effective and completely ineffective. They’re Effective because they prevent conflicts escalating between states that have a nuclear arsenal and ineffective because as weapons they are almost irrelevant. In short: the benefits of nuclear weapons are the same as the negatives."


So, escapists - am I going mental, or does the above make some kind of sense? Not much discussion value here I'm afraid so go mental with your own theories if you wish!

 

[Bagaloo]

I think it makes sense. An interesting conclusion to come to.

Though the deterrent affect only works if both countries have nuclear weapons, if its nukes vs no nukes, there really isn't a reason not to nuke.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

It's kinda true their...with the destructive force behind them a nuclear missle has the power to destroy small cities and towns (just look at hiroshima and nagasaki). If the inital power of the blast doesn't kill then the after-effects of all the radiation pouring through the air certainly will.

 

[Xangi]

That makes quite a bit of sense actually, although, you may want to try rephrasing it, because if I was a prof I'd just sorta skip that part.

Although, frankly, they're not very effective at all not only because of the radiation and shit, but also because they literally DESTROY whatever you shoot them at. There's not going to be much left to take, even after the radiation has cleared, besides a ruined city (town, area, whatever) and a massive crater.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

"Nuke make big boom."
That's what I'd say...

 

[NeutralDrow]

Makes perfect sense. Nukes deter states from being nuked, but nukes can't be used anyway.

...well, not by states, at least. Deterrence doesn't work if a non-state actor gets a hold of nuclear weapons (then you're screwed), but I don't know if that would be relevant to your essay.

 

[major28]

i get wat u were saying and agree completely althoughh you might want to add somewhere that the construction of nuclear weapons will cause national friction

 

[Sleekgiant]

Well that is actually a good conclusion; by showing the negatives and the positives equally weigh each other out, thus making the weapons null or void. Unfortunately most people will still think the devastation it causes as more of a positive then the fact that it makes the surface basically inhabitable, so nukes will still be used as weapons, hopefully for a last resort.

 

[Davrel]

That makes quite a bit of sense actually, although, you may want to try rephrasing it, because if I was a prof I'd just sorta skip that part.

Yeah, that was just a rough version to get the ideas down - besides, I don't want to be caught out by plagiarism detection software detecting my own ideas posted here.

Many thanks for everybody's insight so far!

 

[The Thief]

That's all well and good until you find yourself in a Dr. Strangelove situation.

Then it's time to stop worrying and love the bomb.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

"Nuclear Launch Detected"

Though I agree with your statement, it only takes one nuke to end the world.
Domino effect, eh?

 

[capin Rob]

Nukes=BAD, like the comedian Bill Maher said " before people invented tolarance and understanding, they invented Nucelar weapons"

 

[Kagim]

The cold war is a prime example of the nuke being both ineffective and effective.

Ultimately the cold war would have ended the same way. The only time in history a nuclear weapon was used was to end a situation that would simply mean a great deal of death either way.

The Cold war would have ended at a draw like it did merely because, like people have said, the domino effect. While a massive stockpile of nukes were made neither country was stupid enough to use them simply because the end would result in both sides being terminated. As well in modern war for resources nukes are useless simply because they would render the land useless. Which would be the opposite of what you want in a war for resources.

They are simply kept as a measure of, "You fuck me and ill fuck you" sorta deal. You either have nukes to keep people from threatening you or have enough allies that anyone who dare knock you will have a shit ton of nukes heading your way.

 

[Kaymish]

i dont know current generation nuclear weapons can rip complete islands apart or even destroy them outright people are scared of nuclear weapons because of the shear power they have

and i disagree with them being useless wars of today are fought over ideology it makes no economic sense to invade for resources it is far cheaper to simply buy them off the other nation additionally guerrilla tactics make the land useless for economic gain anyway