>some people honestly want to get rid of nukes
Why? Don't they realize it's what prevented WW3 from actually happening?
And that this is what nations try to get to become 'invasion-proof'.
A conventional war is much more likely if the other party doesn't have these types of WMD's.
The world wouldn't be more peaceful without them. Quite the contrary even.
I think we should get rid of them by dropping them on the most populous cities in the world in order until the arsenals are compltely depleted 2bh
Lmao you can't be serious
Because a war now and then is still better than peace for 500 years until some idiot decides to kill off everyone at once.
>Lmao you can't be serious
This.
>Don't they realize it's what prevented WW3 from actually happening?
Wrong, are you telling me if there were no nukes we would be in a state of all out war?
>And that this is what nations try to get to become 'invasion-proof'.
Because it's the only alternative, without nukes there would be something else.
>A conventional war is much more likely if the other party doesn't have these types of WMD's.
You understand these wars do not exist any more?
It's literally illuminati shit, America is simply following it's own interests, good or bad I don't care but they paint it as good, which it is not.
Conventional weapons and aircraft carriers are eclipsing the tactical role of nukes and in the conflicts a nuclear power and hegemon might find itself in, nukes haven't proven effective in dealing with asymmetrical wars.
Read "Conventional Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age".
If nukes had any place, it was in the late 60s through the 80s.
>Wrong, are you telling me if there were no nukes we would be in a state of all out war?
It would be more likely for great powers to engage in actual non-proxy war with eachother yes.
When was the last time great powers were in full-on frontal wars with eachother since the introduction of nukes to their arsenal?
>there would be something else
And that 'something else' doesn't exist, so it's useless to even mention something else preventing you from being invaded.
>You understand these wars do not exist any more?
Except they do.
What was Iraq 2003 if not a conventional invasion? What was the 2008 invasion of Georgia?
>nukes haven't proven effective in dealing with asymmetrical wars.
Ya don't say? It's almost like war against a small third world nation that you wish to control is different from war between two major countries that wish to destroy each other.
I want to see the madman who actually retaliates with nukes against a conventional aggression
>, nukes haven't proven effective in dealing with asymmetrical wars.
well duh, they're not meant for taking out some goat farmer on a hill in Afghanistan, they're for fucking up battlegroups/large military installations.
Are you telling me Iraq and Georgia are 2 nations on the technological level of America and Russia respectively? Are you seriously, seriously trying to tell me modern wars are the same as ancient ones?
>When was the last time great powers were in full-on frontal wars with eachother since the introduction of nukes to their arsenal?
They don't, because they fucking have no reason to, because wars are not fought the way you think they are. Nukes surely are not the reason why people are not warring, there is simply no reason to. As soon as there is a reason to drop the nukes again, they will.
>And that 'something else' doesn't exist, so it's useless to even mention something else preventing you from being invaded.
What are you even trying to say?
These wars are only happening due to resources (that much has stayed the same) but how they play out are no way near the same.
Nukes are not even the worst weapon nations have in their arsenal. Nukes are now essentially a meme, do you really think Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world powers haven't been doing everything in their power to mitigate the damage from all out nuclear war, which is coming?
That's why no one tries, because the option being there is too much a cost.
>since Hiroshima and Nagasaki*
Essentials of Post–Cold War Deterrence
nukestrat.com
>Foriegn policy that advised -against- portraying U.S. leaders as fully rational and cool-headed actually existed; because "fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary is the working force of deterrence," and "that the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."
It... it all makes sense now. That's why we elect zealots and kenyans!
It does make sense. Everyone knows if North Korea was invaded the nukes would begin flying immediately, because the leader is fucking nuts.
>Are you telling me Iraq and Georgia are 2 nations on the technological level of America and Russia respectively? Are you seriously, seriously trying to tell me modern wars are the same as ancient ones?
No, he isn't. What makes you think that? It's still a conventional war.
>Nukes surely are not the reason why people are not warring, there is simply no reason to
Please read a fucking book. The USSR and USA had every reason to murder each other during the cold war. Instead, they stuck to flinging support at rebels in small countries and never engaged in real warfare with one another. WW2 and the advent of nuclear weapons showed everyone that invading another well equipped country was pretty much suicide.
>nukes are a meme lel
You're an idiot. Even the best case scenarios during the cold war involved most major US cities being wiped off the map. This simply is not possible without nuclear weapons. You're claiming that guns are useless because your enemies have kevlar vests. It's called an arms race, dipshit. It never ends.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>An April 2000 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that "[a]ny country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system."
You're honestly acting like nukes are just a bigger toy and haven't had serious implications in the way policy is made.
Nigga do you know a thing called "MAD"?
That was a legit enough reason not to go to war and it still is.
It's still in the back of policy makers their mind when engaging with a big power in military terms.
It's what made Russia so on edge about a "shield" being made. Even if the US says "lol it's not against u guys, chill", that still doesn't change for Russia. And they're right. Because it would mean it is far far far more vulnerable against the US in case of conflict. It wouldn't be able to hit it back in case of an actual war, while the US would.
Nuclear weapons as a power, and the ability to use them, are your the ticket to being a geopolitical card player. It's why Japan is considering to get some too if they militarize.
Wars between big powers weren't waged because of it and still aren't because the COST of a potential attack is still too high. That's the only reason. No reason will be good enough to risk a nuclear attack.
The possession of a nuke has made North Korea 'safe' from an outside attack because as soon as its existence is threatened, it will retaliate and no one is willing to take that bet.
A small nation having a nuke is basically it guaranteeing it won't have to fear any outside attacks, maybe just proxies at best, but those are more manageable.
I'd rather there be dozens of terrible conventional wars than a single nuclear one where humanity is basically reset.
These are the correct answers. "Nukes" don't stop WW3, and I'd go so far as to debate how empirically "bad a WW3" would be, but it's the over-the-top philosophy of "mutually assured destruction", wherein "we're not fighting over ideas or property anymore, but we're just going to fucking kill everything". That is holding back WW3, that is the goblin in the works for change this planet needs.
Nukes prevent the first. Ironically, they prevent the second as well.
Contrary to individual people, states do not want to commit suicide.
This is why Bush was elected
>Ironically, they prevent the second as well.
?
You two understand there are many, many alternatives to war now. You are using examples of warfare over 10 year old disregarding the fact that there have been a great number of military technological advancements since then, drones being one of them.
I do not want to even think about military applications of a quantum computer. Nukes are oldschool, they are of no use any more - huge destructive power is a thing of the past, now that we can have surgical strikes to such a precise degree.
Most fucking nations with nukes have extensive ABM networks to stop nukes from making landfall, are you serious? You can't just launch a missile these days - unless you are NK.
Because if I throw a nuke, you'll throw a nuke.
It's like a duel where we both know we'll get shot. It's useless to engage in it.
Mutually Assured Destruction
>Because drones prevent war
Economic strangulation ftw.
>Nukes are oldschool, they are of no use any more
Even with modern anti-missile systems isnt the theory "you may stop most, but you won't stop all" still valid?
You don't need to "stop all", you need to still be "standing" when the blows stop coming.
>"you may stop most, but you won't stop all" still valid?
To know this you have to know the complete defensive structure of the respective nation. That being said, most certainly the great powers are more than prepared for nuclear warfare.
> number of military technological advancements since then, drones being one of them.
What do drones have to do with anything? If you start launching drone strikes against a nuclear armed nation they are going to slap your shit into another dimension. Drones are only useful in modern warfare because you aren't risking a pilot and they have a very long loiter time. This is great if you're trying to kill Afghans that are hiding in the mountains. It's useless if you're up against a country that has excellent anti-air capabilities.
> now that we can have surgical strikes to such a precise degree.
Fucking what? I don't think you understand what MAD is. The idea is that you won't be launching any "precision strikes" because I will launch a nuclear hellstorm if you do.
>Most fucking nations with nukes have extensive ABM networks to stop nukes from making landfall
Did you even read my post? ABM networks are not capable of stopping a massive number of nukes from dropping out of orbit. Even if they stopped 90% of them there would still be millions of lives lost.
The "most defensive structure" is a semi-formless command and control which can't be silenced. i.e. USSTRATCOM with facilities in seven parts of the world ready to take up the reins at a moment's notice.
>seven
Nine now.
> you need to still be "standing" when the blows stop coming.
Brilliant. Then you can be lord and master of a country that has been crippled by nuclear warfare. Your cities will be in shambles and your farm land will be irradiated.
Most of those alternatives are attacking allies, proxy wars and so forth. This is the type of war we're seeing now in Ukraine, Syria and the like.
It's far less costly for the actual powers to fight eachother that way, but perhaps a bit more time consuming.
It will be interesting to see ( from a historical perspective, I actually hope we don't see this ) how Russia will engage with the Baltics.
Seems like this will define 21st century war more than all the other frontlines so far, because they weren't involved with any military alliance we're part of.
How Russia will try and attack/take control of a NATO ally will be a defining moment.
Whats some pissant little Reaper going to do against 3,000 something ICBM's?
The argument is that you stop some of it. You jumped the gun outside of context.
>The argument is that you stop some of it.
I got that. It changes nothing. The ability to stop SOME nukes never really changed anything. The risk of getting royally fucked by the ones that make it through is still too great.
>It's useless if you're up against a country that has excellent anti-air capabilities.
A hur durrrrr. So somehow it's capable to lauch nukes, but not drones. Okay Mr. Logic.
>The idea is that you won't be launching any "precision strikes" because I will launch a nuclear hellstorm if you do.
A hur durr what is a strike aimed directly at taking out nuclear capabilities - via drones or even a highly trained invasion team.
> Even if they stopped 90% of them there would still be millions of lives lost.
So? You are telling me that's why wars aren't being fought, because they are afraid of losing a few million - are you serious right now? I honestly cannot tell. Lives lost do not deter people from warring, that's what they will tell you - but it's not the fucking case, how ignorant can you be?
Nukes are not fucking stopping anything, there is just no reason for these hugely powerful people to go to war with each other NUKES ARE ONLY A PART OF THEIR HUGE ARSENAL they are in no way the whole arsenal, like you are trying to imply. Why the hell do you even think they would destroy them out of simple rage?
>A hur durrrrr. So somehow it's capable to lauch nukes, but not drones. Okay Mr. Logic.
You're either trolling, or a complete moron. Either way there is no reason to continue arguing with you. I suggest you read some books on mutually assured destruction and cold war era casualty projections.
3000 ICBMs wouldn't detonate on target, even if you do nothing. Some of them would be lucky to make it out of the launch site, some would fail in transit, some would fail at the target. I wouldn't want to be placing bets at any of the targets, but it's not sensible, knowing what we know of the state of atomic arsenals that "3000" would be successful.
BUT
It only takes one, for example detonated 50 miles over central Colorado, to be a real pain in the ass. That is the danger, not a couple thousand craters.
>I suggest you read some books on mutually assured destruction and cold war era casualty projections.
As I said before, you are using old military logic and applying it to a situation in the future - it doesn't work like that especially since the time you are referencing technology has increased at an insane rate.
tl;dr - everything you have said is irrelevant in this modern day and age
>because they are afraid of losing a few million
That's a huge reason... Holy shit...
Having half your population turn into sand is suicide for any state. Nukes obliterate citizens, not armies. That's why conventional war is more easily waged, because you can sell it.
IT'S SO BRIGHT I CAN SEE ULTIMATE DEATH'S FACE
>That's a huge reason... Holy shit...
It's not enough to stop anything, that's the point.
>So? You are telling me that's why wars aren't being fought, because they are afraid of losing a few million - are you serious right now? I honestly cannot tell. Lives lost do not deter people from warring, that's what they will tell you - but it's not the fucking case, how ignorant can you be?
>le states are eb0l n wuld kill all 4 deh corporations
Sure thing Bernie.
States are run by Satan.
>Even if they stopped 90%
Modern ABM systems are good if they have even a 20% success rate.
90% is the stuff of dreams.
They're still useful however because even the threat that 1 of every 5 of your missiles might not make it to the targets introduces uncertainty. From the perspective of the side launching the missiles instead of allocating 1 or 2 nukes to a single target you may be forced to allocate 3 or 4 to assure that the target is neutralized. That alone diminishing the effectiveness of a large nuclear arsenal maybe as much as 50%.
I'm saying from a purely technical standpoint it is not yet possible to shoot down every missile in a mass strike of ICBMs. Be it Iron Dome, Nautilus, Skyguard, or Star Wars, no such system exists w/ 100% effectiveness.
That such counter weapons -do- exist but are not 100% effective can be an argument for increased numbers of warheads as you must assume some, or even most, will be shot down, and a numerical advantage is more important.
I get what you mean by "no use" in the sense of modern asymmetrical war, my point is they're not yet technologically obsolete.
>States are run by Satan.
All of them? Nonsense, but I've got a strong feeling Alabama might be.
Humans don't even have an 80% success rate in launching non-weaponized space vehicles. The ones that arrive in the target proximity detonated before reaction cuts that success rate significantly.
>inb4 ICBMs aren't space vehicles.
No democracy, far from a dictatorship, would sacrifice millions of its citizens.
Wars are easy to sell when the troopers die.
Not when you risk your entire population.
That's the irony. You can rally people for wars they'll never die in ( even that is sometimes hard, look at the protests against the Iraq war, or recently, with the 'no-fly zone' over Syria ). But you'll never be able to sell a obliteration/fall-out situation to most of the people.
I wouldn't bet my ass on an ICBM exchange. The things are rusty and outdated. It's like talking shit holding a rusty luger.
One of the big lessons of WW2 was that warfare has moved from the battlefield to the cities held hostage by indefensible salvos of weapons of mass destruction.