Poll: Nuclear bombs+Human thinking=???

[NeutralDrow]

Generally speaking, nuclear proliferation is a positive force because it locks a great number of states into a mutually assured destruction scenario, meaning that a nuclear conflict would never happen because nobody is stupid enough to risk annihilation of their own state, and that conventional conflicts would become less common, because of the risk of escalation to a nuclear conflict.

That doesn't work, though. Sure, countries can't use nuclear weapons against each other, but...they can't use nuclear weapons against each other, conventional war be damned. The U.S. and Russia never fought each other openly, it's true, but there were other forces at work, and they were just forced to work through proxy. Conventional war was by no means uncommon during the Cold War. Hell, even today, Pakistan and India are at each others' throats, and they've both had nukes for over a decade.

The only problem is security of weapons. Groups such as Al-Qaeda could conceivably make use of nuclear weapons because you cannot respond to a nuclear attack by such a group with a nuclear counter-attack.

That's a problem. And a pretty damn big one, at that. It's saying nothing of the cost of creating and maintaining a stockpile, and the associated loss of security when everyone suddenly stops trusting you. If I'm in a room with other people, reasonable people, some of whom have guns, and start waving around a gun myself, I'm not getting them to take me seriously, except as a threat and necessary target.

 

[s001911]

As much as a nuclear winter appeals to my sense of poetic justice and gamer strings, i do not think thats how the world will end.

I am going with the "Super Virus" that is immune, nay thrives, on antibiotics.

 

[Mray3460]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs. You fear the man with one bomb.

I'm bookmarking this thread for that quote. Brilliant.

 

[Good morning blues]

That doesn't work, though. Sure, countries can't use nuclear weapons against each other, but...they can't use nuclear weapons against each other, conventional war be damned. The U.S. and Russia never fought each other openly, it's true, but there were other forces at work, and they were just forced to work through proxy. Conventional war was by no means uncommon during the Cold War. Hell, even today, Pakistan and India are at each others' throats, and they've both had nukes for over a decade.

The US and Russia fought each other in proxy wars. If their proxy states had been nuclear powers, that would not have happened. Furthermore, if I'm a state, I don't give a fuck about anyone else's welfare - I want to prevent anyone from fucking with me, and if I have nuclear weapons, I have successfully done that (at least when it comes to security threats from other states). I don't know a lot about India and Pakistan, but I do know that neither of them have sufficient delivery capacity for their nuclear weapons to put them in a situation of mutually assured destruction.

That's a problem. And a pretty damn big one, at that. It's saying nothing of the cost of creating and maintaining a stockpile, and the associated loss of security when everyone suddenly stops trusting you. If I'm in a room with other people, reasonable people, some of whom have guns, and start waving around a gun myself, I'm not getting them to take me seriously, except as a threat and necessary target.

If I'm a state, nobody trusts me regardless of whether I have nuclear weapons. If I'm in a room of reasonable people and a few of them have guns and I reveal that I have guns too, I haven't lost anything - I can just be sure that none of the other people with guns are going to be very quick to point theirs at me because I'm just as dangerous as they are.

 

[NeutralDrow]

That doesn't work, though. Sure, countries can't use nuclear weapons against each other, but...they can't use nuclear weapons against each other, conventional war be damned. The U.S. and Russia never fought each other openly, it's true, but there were other forces at work, and they were just forced to work through proxy. Conventional war was by no means uncommon during the Cold War. Hell, even today, Pakistan and India are at each others' throats, and they've both had nukes for over a decade.

The US and Russia fought each other in proxy wars. If their proxy states had been nuclear powers, that would not have happened. Furthermore, if I'm a state, I don't give a fuck about anyone else's welfare - I want to prevent anyone from fucking with me, and if I have nuclear weapons, I have successfully done that (at least when it comes to security threats from other states). I don't know a lot about India and Pakistan, but I do know that neither of them have sufficient delivery capacity for their nuclear weapons to put them in a situation of mutually assured destruction.

...they're right next to each other. They could probably throw their nukes across the border...but I'll admit I don't know the extent of their stockpiles. Other than to seriously doubt that two countries that have been fighting for the past sixty years (one of which has at least a budding space program) don't have missiles to launch at other.

As for nuclear proxy states...you mean like Turkey and Cuba? Those featured pretty prominently at one point.

So did Vietnam and Afghanistan, for that matter, though in a different way. Both were non-nuclear. Both of which never had nuclear options. That's the whole point, nukes really cannot be used. Not even really to counter conventional force, there's just too much risk and too much potential destruction. Yes, there's a prisoner's dilemma in the whole deal, where both sides keep the weapons because they can't trust each other to get rid of their stockpiles...that doesn't change the fact that cooperation leads to the much better outcome.

That's a problem. And a pretty damn big one, at that. It's saying nothing of the cost of creating and maintaining a stockpile, and the associated loss of security when everyone suddenly stops trusting you. If I'm in a room with other people, reasonable people, some of whom have guns, and start waving around a gun myself, I'm not getting them to take me seriously, except as a threat and necessary target.

If I'm a state, nobody trusts me regardless of whether I have nuclear weapons. If I'm in a room of reasonable people and a few of them have guns and I reveal that I have guns too, I haven't lost anything - I can just be sure that none of the other people with guns are going to be very quick to point theirs at me because I'm just as dangerous as they are.

No...they're going to start pointing their guns at you, because you can now do the same. I don't know where exactly you're getting the idea that the initial state of diplomacy between states is distrust, but that level would officially lower to "you're a crazy person who now has mass destructive capability." Not to mention it's mass destructive capability that the existing nuclear states can't trust that you'll hold onto and not lose to enterprising non-state actors.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs. You fear the man with one bomb.

Besides, if say a nation was to lauch all of it's nukes at any missile bearing nations, only a few would make it through as most would be shot down by interceptor missiles.

The ones that don't work?

 

[Blatherscythe]

You know, I bet if I didn't put the "something like it" part in the poll, you all would have put no.