Nuclear Weapons

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Nuclear weapons are here to stay , well as for as long as humans industrial and technological age last at least .

Since "THE BOMB " was first set off in the arizona desert over 2000 other bombs have been detonated on the planet , most of them much bigger than the first one , its a crazy figure when you think about it.

And even crazier is the story of the nuclear arms race , during the cold war america and the usssr played a game of brinkmanship settting of increasingly bigger warheads , it actually got to the point where the ruskies set of a warhead ( somwhere in russia's part of the arctic circle , not really that far form shetland ...) that was perhaps 50 times larger than the bombs used to destroy hiroshima and nagisaki , that particuler bomb was so big and heavy they had to build a special railway from the factory to the detonantion site , it was so big they had no way of dellivering it to the americans or anybody else for that matter , when it detonated the shock wave was measured going round the planet 7 times , the tectonic plate upon which it sat was measured to have flexed inward , the surrounding land was leveled to molten rock and was said to resemble flat polished glass afterward, and of course there was chernobyl which released perhaps 20 times more radiation than hiroshima.

Today there are several nuclear powered submarine steaming around beneath the oceans loaded up with these weapons with the capability of delivering them anywhere at any time , an almost exclusively male environment of young men cocooned within steel machines , with the possibilty of cabin fever style madness a distinct possibilty.

Meanwhile small scale war with associated death and destruction continues undiminshed.

Is the world a safer place ?

[JAStewart]

The world is safer with nukes than "without" them yes. People are always going to be dying because war is always going to be occurring. But you can be sure that two states with nuclear weapons will not engage in large scale conflict, because the consequences of nuclear weapons are simply too great.

 

an almost exclusively male environment of young men cocooned within steel machines , with the possibilty of cabin fever style madness a distinct possibilty.

I'm curious if you have figures on the demographics of submarine workers?

 

I would imagine there are protocols in place to deal with someone going mad on a nuclear sub. The UK wouldn't send off a sub with the ability to level the world without some system in place whereby both ends need to electronically link it.

[Evil Inky]

But you can be sure that two states with nuclear weapons will not engage in large scale conflict, because the consequences of nuclear weapons are simply too great.

Are you saying that if all countries had nuclear weapons, there would be no more large scale conflict? Why are people so worried about Iran and North Korea getting nukes, then?

[Skunnered]

^^Probably because most people fear that they may let them off wily-nily!

[Evil Inky]

^^Probably because most people fear that they may let them off wily-nily!

Exactly. Which demonstrates the flaw in JAStewart's thinking.

[Ghostrider]

^^ The "suicide bomber" mentality is the flaw in any armed deterrent. Its arguably an insane mentality, but once its there no deterrent will stop it, regardless whether you're fighting with peashooters and catapults or nukes. If individuals, groups of individuals or nations are willing to play on the borders of insanity and actively encourage, or at least condone suicide tactics, there is only one deterrent, a piece of .303 lead between the eyes before they can pull the detonator. That much was proven over 50 years ago with one of the earliest nationally encouraged suicide bombing initatives, the Japanese Kamikazes.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

A very interesting point GR. Is a bullet between the eyes a real deterrent to a kamikze pilot aiming his plane down your ship's funnel?

[unlinkedstudent]

^ ^ ^

 

A very interesting point GR. Is a bullet between the eyes a real deterrent to a kamikze pilot aiming his plane down your ship's funnel?

 

If the bullet resembles one of these, yes!

 

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/media-collections/events-and-features/sea-wolf

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

Nothing resembled those when kamikaze pilots were around, plus, even they have limited use when the plane is approaching at wave top level.

[Ghostrider]

^ ^ ^

 

A very interesting point GR. Is a bullet between the eyes a real deterrent to a kamikze pilot aiming his plane down your ship's funnel?

 

Not much, but once on his final approach a kamikaze pilot has arguably already pulled the detonator, figuratively speaking of course.

 

The lead needs putting through the skull before that final course is set, hence there is very little deterrent to those teetering on the brink of insanity concerning what they are willing to give for "the cause".

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

So you believe in the pre-emptive strike? Get them before they get you. So do many others,including ones who control nuclear arsenals. I'm glad that Dubya is no longer in control.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Not particularly. Pre-emptive actions muddies the waters as to who the true agressor is. There is a window, albeit usually an extremely small one, where agressive acts have clearly been commenced, but before they are actually fully carried out, where actions are far more preferable. e.g. catch the suicide bomber all strapped up with explosives, but before they detonate them. Interceptor missiles to knock down those already launched and heading your way.

 

Its not much, but in these days of nationless wars and commonplace suicide tactics, it all we got to put either side on the moral high ground.

 

I'm glad Bush is gone too, only thing is I'm yet to be convinced he's not been replaced by something much worse.

[ArabiaTerra]

...it actually got to the point where the ruskies set of a warhead ( somwhere in russia's part of the arctic circle , not really that far form shetland ...) that was perhaps 50 times larger than the bombs used to destroy hiroshima and nagisaki , that particuler bomb was so big and heavy they had to build a special railway from the factory to the detonantion site , it was so big they had no way of dellivering it to the americans or anybody else for that matter

Hmm, that would be the Tsar Bomba. I don't want to appear pedantic, but...aw, what the hell...

 

It was 57Mt, which is about 3500 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb and it was deliverable. In fact the actual bomb used in the test was dropped from a plane.

 

This is the explosion

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoQsZa8F1c

 

If you really want to know what a nuclear war would be like, I would recommend the TV movie Threads. And for an excellent treaties on the ethics and morality of nuclear war I would recommend The Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell.

 

All hail the mushroom cloud.

[JAStewart]

But you can be sure that two states with nuclear weapons will not engage in large scale conflict, because the consequences of nuclear weapons are simply too great.

Are you saying that if all countries had nuclear weapons, there would be no more large scale conflict? Why are people so worried about Iran and North Korea getting nukes, then?

Because there is an inherit false fear that Iran or N.Korea will launch them or they will be accidentally launched or whatever.

 

This is despite there being now evidence something like this would happen. Countries have a huge vested interest in not letting their nuclear weapons be used willy nilly.

 

Regarding terrorism, particularly suicide terrorism: Terrorism is hugely exaggerated. More people have died from peanut related allergies and bathtub related incidents in the USA than have died in acts of terror [Mueller, J., 2004]. If suicide terror is so hard to deter, why haven't we seen much more terrorism? Because it's over-hyped. There are already measures in place to stop the leakage of nuclear material to terrorists [Allison, G., (2004)]

[Evil Inky]

Are you saying that if all countries had nuclear weapons, there would be no more large scale conflict? Why are people so worried about Iran and North Korea getting nukes, then?

Because there is an inherit false fear that Iran or N.Korea will launch them or they will be accidentally launched or whatever.

 

This is despite there being now evidence something like this would happen. Countries have a huge vested interest in not letting their nuclear weapons be used willy nilly.

You don't think letting every tinpot military dictator have the means to kill millions of people doesn't carry the slightest risk ?