What happens when nuclear missiles become obsolete?

[Dakinks]

There's never going to be a WWIII, in my humble non-expert opinion. The world economy is too integrated at this point. China isn't a rival of the US in the traditional sense; they would in no way benefit from a war, and our economies are incredibly intertwined. Of course, there is competition between the two, and with massive natural resources (not to mention a few less than ethical government practices to help foster growth), China's definitely a force to be reckoned with. It's more like the US and China are two friends fighting over the same girl --the girl in this case being economic supremacy There's a mutual respect there, and neither really wants the other hurt, but they both know only one of them can ultimately be top dog.

And NK's communism is ancillary. In the end, it's a brainwashed nation run by a charismatic despot. The fact that it's communist doesn't really matter.

 

[kidd25]

If nuclear missiles were to become obsolete .... I believe we'd have to conclude that humanity has gone extinct.

or vaults, don't forget vaults!

 

[spartan231490]

Look, North Korea is much, much more than communism. Nobody cares about the idea that they're a communist country, that's just western rhetoric. The problem is mere geopolitical positioning - China defends NK because it is a buffer zone. By far the easiest border to invade China from is the Korean border. They don't like that SK is buddy-buddy w/ us. Were we to take over NK, they would attack us no matter what, because they'd consider that encroachment, nukes or no nukes. Why the hell do you think they crossed over the border during the Korean War in the first place?

At the same time, they don't like the regime in NK. The problem is that NK is starving because 80% of the land there is mountain and unsuitable for agriculture. To compensate for this, NK is not just importing food from China, but they're terracing too. The problem with THAT, is that since those mountains are being terraced, valuable mineral deposits are going to waste. NK is a mining haven waiting to be exploited, but the government there doesn't want to exploit it. They want to be self-sufficient. They want to survive as their own country.

So the example in the OP was rather poorly chosen, because the stalemate in Korea has almost nothing to do with nuclear arms, but rather the issue of border control.

On the other hand, there is one conflict which will be significantly affected by this defense grid, and that is the feud between India and Pakistan. Both are intent on nuking the other, and the first one that will be protected by this grid will want to launch its nukes at the other country ASAP. That would be rather bad for global stability, so we're more likely to see diplomatic mediation involving the two countries and their benefactors, the US and China respectively (and slightly off-topic, if you ever get the chance to look into it, the relationship between China and Pakistan is absolutely fascinating and one of the most underrated political alliances of the modern era in terms of importance).

In short, a system that renders the nuclear deterrent obsolete would be rather useless, because we've already rendered the nuclear deterrent obsolete through diplomacy. I don't think we'll be launching nukes at each other even if we could.

That example is not irrelevant to the OP. What caused the issue is irrelevant to the OP, the OP was saying that if nuclear war becomes obsolete, and there is no threat of nuclear destruction, it will remove the only thing that is preventing the major world powers from going to war.

Diplomacy has not rendered the nuclear deterrent obsolete. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.

OT: Yes, a global system rendering nuclear weapons obsolete would be very bad. WW3 would probably break out in about a month. China and Russia verses the US, probably fighting most of the battle over the middle east, with raiding strikes in all 3 countries. Very very bad for just about everyone. Yes, i realize that other countries would join in, but those would be the 3 major players.

 

[Magicmad5511]

If nukes became obsolete then people would just invent a better weapon. That is it.
Meaning that if nukes were obsolete then we are all going to die.

 

[Esotera]

Simple: Launch drones up into space, have them attach to large NEO's (near Earth objects) and attach guidance and propulsion systems to them. Railguns and lasers may be able to disarm nukes but they'll be useless against fucking asteroids.

Absolutely this. Humanity will always find new and interesting ways to kill each other, and one of those methods will act as an effective deterrent against future wars. Who's going to fight a country that has the ability to fire gigantic rocks at them from space?

 

[spartan231490]

to everyone pointing out reasons why nukes will never be obsolete: You're missing the point. Pretend that someone seeds the earth with neutron jammers from Gundam seed if you have to, which prevents nuclear reactions from occurring. Then answer the question.

 

[Zuljeet]

If nuclear missiles were to become obsolete .... I believe we'd have to conclude that humanity has gone extinct.

Correct! for they would have all been used. X(

 

[Ryujisama]

When nukes become obsolete, I'm expecting giant mech suits to be next in line.

 

[soulsabr]

If nuclear missiles were to become obsolete .... I believe we'd have to conclude that humanity has gone extinct.

Correct! for they would have all been used. X(

I guess this gives new meaning to the phrase "planned obsolescence".

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

Jupiter will wake up one day and notice half of it is glowing bright green.

 

[Galaxy Roll]

Stopping missiles wouldn't make nukes obsolete. Throwing things at people has been the original battle tactic since the dawn of man. Now look at today: it's still the most common hostile tactic, even above stabbing.

Spoiler: Though our method of throwing has becoming a little more sophisticated