A discussion about nuclear weapons and what the future may hold?

[HST274]

Vladimir Putin knows the rules of the game as well as anyone, if he wants to commit suicide, there are simpler ways to do it.

My point was that nuclear weapons and WMD in general are not a good thing. Putin almost definitely wouldn't press the button in any circumstance, whether NATO joined in the war or whether he wanted to kill himself. But what about the next nutjob to come along- China, Russia, North Korea, a terrorist group getting their hands on one (somehow) even a corrupted western country. If we survive climate change, then there are centuries and potentially millenia for someone to come along who just thinks it would be better if everything... ended. Bit dramatic and probably worth another thread but rant over...

 

[Cowley]

My point was that nuclear weapons and WMD in general are not a good thing. Putin almost definitely wouldn't press the button in any circumstance, whether NATO joined in the war or whether he wanted to kill himself. But what about the next nutjob to come along- China, Russia, North Korea, a terrorist group getting their hands on one (somehow) even a corrupted western country. If we survive climate change, then there are centuries and potentially millenia for someone to come along who just thinks it would be better if everything... ended. Bit dramatic and probably worth another thread but rant over...

Actually I think it probably is worth a separate thread because it’s a discussion worth having.

there are centuries and potentially millenia for someone to come along who just thinks it would be better if everything... ended

As you say maybe a little dramatic, but the point about these weapons (or versions of them) existing for centuries is a sobering one.

 

[GS250]

All this talk of nuclear weaponary....anyone else have their childhood temporarily ruined by the QED 'Armageddon' documentary in the 1980s???!!!

Seem to recall plenty at school had near sleepless nights for a few days after this.

 

[TheEdge]

All this talk of nuclear weaponary....anyone else have their childhood temporarily ruined by the QED 'Armageddon' documentary in the 1980s???!!!

Seem to recall plenty at school had near sleepless nights for a few days after this.

I had a colleague yesterday said he feels like he should try to give Threads a watch. I think in the current situation watching that you wouldn't sleep for weeks.

 

[Ediswan]

Looking at the long term, you cannot 'uninvent' a technology, but if not kept in active use, you can forget how to do it.

In context, the US uses a material called 'Fogbank' in fusion weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank

If I have summarised correctly, Fogbank was initially made from 1975 to 1989. When they tried to make some more in 1996, it took until 2007 to get something that worked.

Anybody up for building a classic Egyptian pyramid ?

 

[AlterEgo]

I think this conflict has neatly proven all the people who don't think nuclear weapons are a deterrent entirely wrong.

 

[ungreat]

I had a colleague yesterday said he feels like he should try to give Threads a watch. I think in the current situation watching that you wouldn't sleep for weeks.

Threads is definitely a must watch..but maybe not just now!

 

[DarloRich]

All this talk of nuclear weaponary....anyone else have their childhood temporarily ruined by the QED 'Armageddon' documentary in the 1980s???!!!

Seem to recall plenty at school had near sleepless nights for a few days after this.

Christ - don't watch threads then!

I think this conflict has neatly proven all the people who don't think nuclear weapons are a deterrent entirely wrong.

Absolutely!

 

[GS250]

Threads is definitely a must watch..but maybe not just now!

Brutal film. Scarier than any vampire or supernatural movie.

Hoping that if Putin is removed....a rational Russian leader is installed who can work along with China and the USA to reduce the stockpile. Who needs over 500 warheads? Aren't the majority in storage awaiting disposal anyway?

 

[adrock1976]

I think this conflict has neatly proven all the people who don't think nuclear weapons are a deterrent entirely wrong.

The point is regarding the deterrent concept, for it to work, you have to be prepared to actually use it.

Nobody in their right mind would ever consider detonating a nuclear bomb, as amongst other things if that scenario happened, then it has failed to deter anybody or anything. After all, the nine nuclear weapon states (USA, UK, France, Russia Federation, China (all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and also signatories to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) which states in its articles that "... to disarm in good faith"), India, Pakistan, DPRK/North Korea, and Israel (still to actually fess up to possessing them) failed to stop the Iran-Iraq conflict (Saddam Huessain was best buddies with Regan and Thatcher, and funded and trained him), the former Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan, the assassination of Salvadore Allende by the CIA on 9/11 1973, the Israeli Government from invading and occupying territory and attacking the aid ship Mavi Marmara using white phosphor (banned in international law) in 2010, the London attacks in 2005, Saudi Arabia's present conflict in Yemen (caused by the UK selling arms to the Saudi Government), the Troubles in Northern Ireland, swine flu, Covid 19, and many others etc.

In 1996, Christopher Weermantry (who was a judge at the International Court of Justice) advisory opinion was that "the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to international law", as the radiation fallout would not be able to discriminate between civillian or military targets/population. Also, it would also be in contravention of the Geneva Convention that was agreed after WWII.

This shows that the deterence concept actually falls down, as they cannot be used at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

The point is regarding the deterrent concept, for it to work, you have to be prepared to actually use it.

Nobody in their right mind would ever consider detonating a nuclear bomb, as amongst other things if that scenario happened, then it has failed to deter anybody or anything. After all, the nine nuclear weapon states (USA, UK, France, Russia Federation, China (all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and also signatories to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) which states in its articles that "... to disarm in good faith"), India, Pakistan, DPRK/North Korea, and Israel (still to actually fess up to possessing them) failed to stop the Iran-Iraq conflict (Saddam Huessain was best buddies with Regan and Thatcher, and funded and trained him), the former Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan, the assassination of Salvadore Allende by the CIA on 9/11 1973, the Israeli Government from invading and occupying territory and attacking the aid ship Mavi Marmara using white phosphor (banned in international law) in 2010, the London attacks in 2005, Saudi Arabia's present conflict in Yemen (caused by the UK selling arms to the Saudi Government), the Troubles in Northern Ireland, swine flu, Covid 19, and many others etc.

Nuclear weapons didn't prevent Covid or the Troubles or the July 7th bombs, right-o, but that is just a bonkers line of reasoning.

Nuclear weapons aren't supposed to deter you from slinging a petrol bomb at an armoured car, they're there to prevent smaller conflicts developing into world wars by balance of power. The nuclear deterrent and risk of the most dire consequences for all participants through initial and retaliatory strikes is why we are not getting involved.

In 1996, Christopher Weermantry (who was a judge at the International Court of Justice) advisory opinion was that "the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to international law", as the radiation fallout would not be able to discriminate between civillian or military targets/population. Also, it would also be in contravention of the Geneva Convention that was agreed after WWII.

This shows that the deterence concept actually falls down, as they cannot be used at all.

But they might be used. Your logic reckons on the point that every participant believes there is a zero percent chance that Putin can or will use nukes.

According to you, he won't, because of the "international law" (enforced by the "international police" I expect), which Putin has shown himself to be so expertly capable of following in the past weeks. I have no idea why you would form an argument around "they can't use nukes, it would be illegal against international law" when you have shown you understand that states often wilfully break it by including the example:

the Israeli Government from invading and occupying territory and attacking the aid ship Mavi Marmara using white phosphor (banned in international law) in 2010

Elsewhere you talked about how all the countries in the world must decide to disarm all their militaries forever and sit holding hands in a peace circle, as if all territorial claims, errors of history, atrocities, resource pinches and ethnic gripes all could just melt away into the ether.

Life is not like that; war is an ever-present and humanity, unfortunately, cannot help creating conflict.

 

[Strathclyder]

I had a colleague yesterday said he feels like he should try to give Threads a watch. I think in the current situation watching that you wouldn't sleep for weeks.

My social studies (I think, memory is a tad fuzzy there) class back in high school watched a good chunk of Threads, right up to the bombs falling and the immediate aftermath. To say it rattled me would be a gross understatement. I wouldn't dare watch it - or the likes of When the Wind Blows, The Day After or The War Games - right now; I'd lose at least a week's worth of sleep if I did.

 

[birchesgreen]

After i watched Threads i resolved that if there was a nuclear war i wouldn't hide from the bombs i'd go out into the open ground so i'd get vapourised!

 

[DelayRepay]

My social studies (I think, memory is a tad fuzzy there) class back in high school watched a good chunk of Threads, right up to the bombs falling and the immediate aftermath. To say it rattled me would be a gross understatement. I wouldn't dare watch it - or the likes of When the Wind Blows, The Day After or The War Games - right now; I'd lose at least a week's worth of sleep if I did.

Threads terrified me. Made worse by the fact that I grew up in 1980s Sheffield and recognised many of the locations in the film.

 

[deltic]

Putin is quite capable of using nuclear weapons.

What would the nuclear powers do if Putin used a non-strategic battlefield nuclear weapon to take out Ukranian resistance in western Ukraine? They certainly wouldn't launch an all out barrage of nuclear ballistic missiles on the Kremlin. Putin will push as far as he can go and gamble on what he can get away with before the West engages militarily. This war has shown how good US intelligence is in relation to Russia we have to assume the same applies the other way.

 

[adc82140]

After i watched Threads i resolved that if there was a nuclear war i wouldn't hide from the bombs i'd go out into the open ground so i'd get vapourised!

Someone once asked me where I'd hide in the event of a nuclear war. I said in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

 

[squizzler]

As I said on the main thread, Putin did not explicitly say he would use atomic weapons in response to the situation in Ukraine. He warned of AFAIK “terrible consequences”. Could've meant stopping gas exports - the little kernel of truth that this master liar wrapped his payload.

His skill (probably from KGB) is to use the strength our imaginations against us, like in Judo. We immediately think “he means nuclear” go away and watch zombie movies and get ourselves into a right funk. We are doing his work for him much better than any Russian propoganfda film.

 

[GS250]

As I said on the main thread, Putin did not explicitly say he would use atomic weapons in response to the situation in Ukraine. He warned of AFAIK “terrible consequences”. Could've meant stopping gas exports - the little kernel of truth that this master liar wrapped his payload.

His skill (probably from KGB) is to use the strength our imaginations against us, like in Judo. We immediately think “he means nuclear” go away and watch zombie movies and get ourselves into a right funk. We are doing his work for him much better than any Russian propoganfda film.

Putin has played a blinder as far as psychological warfare goes. By simply mentioning the N word, given the context, it's sent an extremely chilling message to the Western World. On the other hand, Donald Trump explicitly suggested something along the lines of "we have these weapons, we could actually be using them" to a relatively muted response Worldwide.

There's always been an assumption (and probably a correct one), that no one would dare use their atomic arsenal. However, this makes it effectively redundant. By very loosely insinuating that they could come into play, this effectively makes them relevant again.

 

[DarloRich]

The situation seen over Ukraine shows deterrence in action. It is nothing new although I suspect lots of people have forgotten that or not lived through the cold war.

 

[Strathclyder]

Threads terrified me. Made worse by the fact that I grew up in 1980s Sheffield and recognised many of the locations in the film.

Part of the reason why it was and continues to be so damned effective, I think.

 

[SargeNpton]

There's always been an assumption (and probably a correct one), that no one would dare use their atomic arsenal. However, this makes it effectively redundant. By very loosely insinuating that they could come into play, this effectively makes them relevant again.

Are you alluding Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.), i.e. that if one superpower were to launch a nuclear attack on its enemy, that enemy would launch its own nuclear arsenal on the aggressor - with both being reduced to rubble.

The idea being that each side's fear of being obliterated prevents them from being the first to strike.

 

[ungreat]

Brutal film. Scarier than any vampire or supernatural movie.

Hoping that if Putin is removed....a rational Russian leader is installed who can work along with China and the USA to reduce the stockpile. Who needs over 500 warheads? Aren't the majority in storage awaiting disposal anyway?

I was scared by it..grew up in Sheffield

 

[tommy2215]

Ian Blackford still calling for the abolition of Trident. If there is one thing this conflict has taught us, its how extremely effective nuclear deterrents are, and that they are not just a cold war weapon with no use in the 21st century. The nuclear weapon threat has so far kept NATO from a military intervention and NATO's nuclear weapons is at least part of the reason Putin is yet to take any direct action against NATO.

 

[brad465]

Ian Blackford still calling for the abolition of Trident. If there is one thing this conflict has taught us, its how extremely effective nuclear deterrents are, and that they are not just a cold war weapon with no use in the 21st century. The nuclear weapon threat has so far kept NATO from a military intervention and NATO's nuclear weapons is at least part of the reason Putin is yet to take any direct action against NATO.

Then other parties in Scotland need to call him out with logical arguments to justify Trident, to either get the SNP into line or out of power in Scotland altogether. Not forgetting of course Trident gives Scotland jobs.

 

[adc82140]

I suppose the question is whether we need an independent nuclear deterrent, or whether we are sufficiently covered by the US under NATO Article 5. I don't know the answer to this.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suppose the question is whether we need an independent nuclear deterrent, or whether we are sufficiently covered by the US under NATO Article 5. I don't know the answer to this.

The SNP's answer to getting rid of nukes cannot be to become a military vassal of the United States.

 

[TheEdge]

The SNP's answer to getting rid of nukes cannot be to become a military vassal of the United States.

So are Germany, Canada, Spain, Italy, Poland and everyone else in NATO except us and the French a vassal of the US then? Truly only the French have an independent nuclear deterrent, our Tridents are in a shared pool with the US Atlantic fleet.

NATO provides that MAD deterrent to every member regardless of their actual nuclear status.

 

[AlterEgo]

So are Germany, Canada, Spain, Italy, Poland and everyone else in NATO except us and the French a vassal of the US then?

Yes, NATO is an American-driven scheme and all the other countries in it are to some extent or another, effectively defence vassals of the USA. See also the number of American bases operating on British soil; we do not solely guarantee our own defence and rely on the US to help provide it.

The point of the SNP's anti-nuclear stance is that they want to save money and politically distance themselves from rUK, except they'd still be a vassal state for defence purposes, both of the UK who would provide their air power like we do for Ireland (An independent Scotland would not have an air force capable of territorial defence!), and of NATO, should Scotland decide to join (the SNP currently has a policy of joining NATO after independence).

Incidentally, we hear often about Putin meddling in Brexit and how it's to his - supposed - advantage but almost never about mad theories he funds or encourages Scottish separatism which DOES further Russia's interests by fouling the plans for the UK's nuclear deterrent in Faslane. We are learning very fast how important nuclear deterrence is in managing the scale of war.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2022 ==

NATO provides that MAD deterrent to every member regardless of their actual nuclear status.

In theory. I'd like to see if nukes were ever used after an invasion of Lithuania, for example. I suspect there would be considerable vacillation and NATO would not strike first.

 

[DarloRich]

NATO would not strike first.

Don't NATO have a no first strike policy with regard to nuclear weapons? In any event I don't think the response to the invasion of, say, Lithuania by Russia is immediate nuclear war. Surely the response escalates through conventional responses and counter stroke to tactical weapons until we get to the big red button stage.

The question is would NATO respond with nuclear weapons if only Lithuania is attacked with nuclear weapons.

 

[adc82140]

China has a no strike first policy (and has its warheads all stored to allow time for diplomacy)
Russia has a no first strike policy, unless the country is attacked with any weapon of mass destruction, or if conventional warfare "threatens the very existence of the state" whatever that means.
The US does not, as far as I'm aware, have a no first strike policy.
I have no idea about India/Pakistan/Israel.