I was reading up on Atomic weapons today for whatever reason and I was curious about your opinions about them. Do you think the world would be a better place without Atomic weapons
( Read more... )
Was it really the fear of nuclear war, or the fear of yet another military arm to have to pour billions of dollars into that led the USA and USSR to agree not to put weapons into space? ;)
There's a difference in the deterrent effect of a massive army, and the deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal. But first, there's even a difference between the deterrent effect of a massive army in 1910 and the effect of a massive army in 1950. I don't think many people in 1912 were expecting the Great War to turn into a massive vicious bloodbath in which 100K men die so that General Haig's drinks cabinet can be moved six feet closer to Berlin. On the other hand, by 1950, everyone knows that massive arms buildups can result in massive wars and the devastation of an entire continent. Deterrent of a great army is still not absolute, of course, but it is there moreso than it was before the first world war.
Now, back to the difference between a nuclear and conventional deterrent. The big difference is that with a conventional war, you can at most any time throw up your hands and say "okay, I'm done, let's talk terms" and bring the war to an end before your economy is completely destroyed and an entire generation of men slaughtered. Limited war is entirely feasible at the conventional level.
However, at the nuclear level, with some exceptions, most military and civilian think-tank planners tend to concur that most any size nuclear exchange between two heavily nuclear-armed countries will eventually lead to all-out nuclear war. In "the business", this is sometimes colloquially referred to as "if one flys, they all fly". (This stems from a common assumption known as "use it or lose it") Further compounding this is that, unlike bombers and armies, once ballistic missiles are launched, there's no recall order or self-destruct code: once they're launched, someone's getting an instant sunrise.
And, when two heavily nuclear-armed countries go at it, it's game over for both parties. There will be survivors, there will be society, but it will not be the same society that existed prior to the launch order. It would be the greatest disaster modern civilization has ever seen, and both nations (and much of the world, seeing as the economic destruction of a major power or two will basically crash the world economy) will suddenly be in survival mode.
Thus, seeing as how there can be no turning back once the order is given to launch a nuclear attack, and seeing how such an attack will very likely lead to the utter ruination of both nations, it's really quite counter-productive to consider using nuclear weapons against another nuclear state, or even to engage in a conventional war; if it looks like they're going to lose the war badly, they may start thinking about using nuclear weapons if they think it's the only way to safeguard their territory.
A nuclear arsenal can be a very effective deterrent, provided all the actors are at least somewhat rational. Yes, we may have doubts about the rationality of our current administration (or that of other administrations or of other nations) but nuclear weapons tend to sober up even the most militant dictatorships since the stakes in any major conflict just became "all-in". Obviously, this comes into doubt when some parties - namely, North Korea - are clearly not rational in much of any sense.
There's a difference in the deterrent effect of a massive army, and the deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal. But first, there's even a difference between the deterrent effect of a massive army in 1910 and the effect of a massive army in 1950. I don't think many people in 1912 were expecting the Great War to turn into a massive vicious bloodbath in which 100K men die so that General Haig's drinks cabinet can be moved six feet closer to Berlin. On the other hand, by 1950, everyone knows that massive arms buildups can result in massive wars and the devastation of an entire continent. Deterrent of a great army is still not absolute, of course, but it is there moreso than it was before the first world war.
Now, back to the difference between a nuclear and conventional deterrent. The big difference is that with a conventional war, you can at most any time throw up your hands and say "okay, I'm done, let's talk terms" and bring the war to an end before your economy is completely destroyed and an entire generation of men slaughtered. Limited war is entirely feasible at the conventional level.
However, at the nuclear level, with some exceptions, most military and civilian think-tank planners tend to concur that most any size nuclear exchange between two heavily nuclear-armed countries will eventually lead to all-out nuclear war. In "the business", this is sometimes colloquially referred to as "if one flys, they all fly". (This stems from a common assumption known as "use it or lose it") Further compounding this is that, unlike bombers and armies, once ballistic missiles are launched, there's no recall order or self-destruct code: once they're launched, someone's getting an instant sunrise.
And, when two heavily nuclear-armed countries go at it, it's game over for both parties. There will be survivors, there will be society, but it will not be the same society that existed prior to the launch order. It would be the greatest disaster modern civilization has ever seen, and both nations (and much of the world, seeing as the economic destruction of a major power or two will basically crash the world economy) will suddenly be in survival mode.
Thus, seeing as how there can be no turning back once the order is given to launch a nuclear attack, and seeing how such an attack will very likely lead to the utter ruination of both nations, it's really quite counter-productive to consider using nuclear weapons against another nuclear state, or even to engage in a conventional war; if it looks like they're going to lose the war badly, they may start thinking about using nuclear weapons if they think it's the only way to safeguard their territory.
A nuclear arsenal can be a very effective deterrent, provided all the actors are at least somewhat rational. Yes, we may have doubts about the rationality of our current administration (or that of other administrations or of other nations) but nuclear weapons tend to sober up even the most militant dictatorships since the stakes in any major conflict just became "all-in". Obviously, this comes into doubt when some parties - namely, North Korea - are clearly not rational in much of any sense.
Reply
Leave a comment