NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, just testing the waters her, but what would be the response to a proposal requiring the destruction of only _offensive_ nuklear weapons.

How would you define "offensive"?

How would you define "offensive"?For instance, something like a dirty bomb or depleted uranium shells, which are useful only to poison the surrounding area. Or anything other than a nuclear defense grid, for instance, "I could shoot this nuke up your exhaust pipe"=offensive "I could shoot this nuke, intercept yours, and poison your atmosphere with your own stupid bomb."=defensive.

BUMP

Okay, out of curiousity, is everyone voting a UN member?

The problem that was brought up before with nuclear weapons is that they have the potential to end civilisation and the world in a very short amount of time with little or no thought involved. Only an absolute ban on nuclear weapons could put an end to that risk.

The problem that was brought up before with nuclear weapons is that they have the potential to end civilisation and the world in a very short amount of time with little or no thought involved. Only an absolute ban on nuclear weapons could put an end to that risk.The odd thing is, everyone against this last resolution was saying that without nukes, they could not defend their country. Leetonia has no nuclear weapons, but is more than capable of defending itself, with highly skilled and cybernetically enhanced commandos, a national animal that doubles as a warship, and a currency that also serves as an impervious infantry.

Has anyone developed a defensive nuclear weapon? After all, a nuke is a poor and overpriced option for intercepting other nukes when the tracking capability to intercept it with a conventional warhead is already in existence.

For instance, something like a dirty bomb or depleted uranium shells, which are useful only to poison the surrounding area. Or anything other than a nuclear defense grid, for instance, "I could shoot this nuke up your exhaust pipe"=offensive "I could shoot this nuke, intercept yours, and poison your atmosphere with your own stupid bomb."=defensive.

Err... depleted uranium has a purpose well beyond "to poison the surrounding area." Any poisoning is an unintentional consequence of a very necessary military application of DU, which is to pierce armor. Electron depletion of uranium creates an extremely hard metal that can punch through composite armors.

It is extremely low in radioactivity, and is handled daily by military and police without long-term damage. It primarily contaminates an area when a shot is fractured, such as a DU bullet glancing off of tank armor or a DU shell exploding. In these cases the contamination is extremely local, and proper cleanup techniques following the battle can protect the local population from long-term effects. These effects simply cannot be compared to the effects of a nuclear weapon.

Has anyone developed a defensive nuclear weapon? After all, a nuke is a poor and overpriced option for intercepting other nukes when the tracking capability to intercept it with a conventional warhead is already in existence.Main reason I found it hard to agree with all these "I can't defend myself now" people.
Err... depleted uranium has a purpose well beyond "to poison the surrounding area." Any poisoning is an unintentional consequence of a very necessary military application of DU, which is to pierce armor. Electron depletion of uranium creates an extremely hard metal that can punch through composite armors.

It is extremely low in radioactivity, and is handled daily by military and police without long-term damage. It primarily contaminates an area when a shot is fractured, such as a DU bullet glancing off of tank armor or a DU shell exploding. In these cases the contamination is extremely local, and proper cleanup techniques following the battle can protect the local population from long-term effects. These effects simply cannot be compared to the effects of a nuclear weapon.Okay, what I know about uranium mainly comes from nuclear power, and in those instances a depleted uranium fuel rod, unless properly disposed of could kill a small city in a matter of hours.

OK, a few problems I see.

1) DU is NOT a nuclear weapon. DU is used in APFSDS/APDS shells for its extremely high density (300% more than that of steel) and resultant ability to penetrate armour. DU has a very low radiation emissions rate (it emits much alpha-radiation, stopped by the skin, and beta-radiation, stopped by the uniforms of the tankers, and only a little gamma-radiation, no more than you would get from living in Edinburgh.)

2) Any nuclear weapon can be used offensively, just like any other weapon. The sole exception is nuclear-warheaded ABM missiles. The principle of MAD and its resultant deterrance of aggression means that in order for nuclear weapons not to be used, everyone must have them to deter their use by threat of retaliation. If you remove offensive nuclear systems (which is in fact all nuclear systems, bar perhaps bombers) you again hand over the nuclear monopoly to the non-UN nations. They can use ICBMs, with a 20 - 40-minute flight time (accounting for the size of the NS world) versus manned bombers with a 12-hour flight time that can be intercepted by any AA system. All they have to do is knock out airfields (ane believe me that wouldn't be hard to do with a well-aimed warhead) and bingo, they hold all the UN nations to ransom, with a nuclear knife at their throats.

hence a ban on nuclear weapons needing to be absolute

OK, a few problems I see.

1) DU is NOT a nuclear weapon. DU is used in APFSDS/APDS shells for its extremely high density (300% more than that of steel) and resultant ability to penetrate armour. DU has a very low radiation emissions rate (it emits much alpha-radiation, stopped by the skin, and beta-radiation, stopped by the uniforms of the tankers, and only a little gamma-radiation, no more than you would get from living in Edinburgh.)

2) Any nuclear weapon can be used offensively, just like any other weapon. The sole exception is nuclear-warheaded ABM missiles. The principle of MAD and its resultant deterrance of aggression means that in order for nuclear weapons not to be used, everyone must have them to deter their use by threat of retaliation. If you remove offensive nuclear systems (which is in fact all nuclear systems, bar perhaps bombers) you again hand over the nuclear monopoly to the non-UN nations. They can use ICBMs, with a 20 - 40-minute flight time (accounting for the size of the NS world) versus manned bombers with a 12-hour flight time that can be intercepted by any AA system. All they have to do is knock out airfields (ane believe me that wouldn't be hard to do with a well-aimed warhead) and bingo, they hold all the UN nations to ransom, with a nuclear knife at their throats.
Okay, I only mentioned DU because it was in the original proposal, 2. From your second point, its seems to me that all having nukes would do is ensure mutual destruction.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151887&start=0

If you want to cut down on nukes, this resolution is the only one that would really have chance.

Defensive nukes? Right... how are explosives defensive? You can't have a "defensive" grenade unless it's explicitly designed to knock them or their weapons out, and you can't very well "tone down" a nuclear weapon. Just throw your weight in behind this proposal if you want to have a shot at this.

How would you define "offensive"?For instance, something like a dirty bomb or depleted uranium shells, which are useful only to poison the surrounding area. Or anything other than a nuclear defense grid, for instance, "I could shoot this nuke up your exhaust pipe"=offensive "I could shoot this nuke, intercept yours, and poison your atmosphere with your own stupid bomb."=defensive.

You have no idea what depleted uranium is, do you?

How would you define "offensive"?For instance, something like a dirty bomb or depleted uranium shells, which are useful only to poison the surrounding area. Or anything other than a nuclear defense grid, for instance, "I could shoot this nuke up your exhaust pipe"=offensive "I could shoot this nuke, intercept yours, and poison your atmosphere with your own stupid bomb."=defensive.

You have no idea what depleted uranium is, do you?

Okay, I only mentioned DU because it was in the original proposal, 2. From your second point, its seems to me that all having nukes would do is ensure mutual destruction.

The DU thing: Fair enough, but it's not a WMD. And yes, nuclear proliferation does ensure mutual destrucion (Hence MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction), which is why it is vital that their posession by the UN members continue. The one thing deterring the non-UN aggressors from using nuclear warheads is the knowledge that it will result in their own destruction.

Look, Mutual assured destruction is stupid, I'll agree. However, setting your country up for Unilateral Assured destruction is even dumber. I'd rather be MAD than UAD any day of the week. Remember, U.N. resolutions only affect U.N. members such as ourselves. The rogue states will pay no attention. What will you do when you have disarmed and Xganinstan launches a nuclear strike? (that is what will you do besides put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?). Go the U.N. and whine? "Its not fair, they have nukes and I don't. " Sorry, a total nuke ban is stupid in our official opinion.

Respectfully,
His Royal Highness,
King 'Lude II

Okay, just testing the waters her, but what would be the response to a proposal requiring the destruction of only _offensive_ nuklear weapons.

I'm curious what a defensive weapon of mass destruction looks like.

10kMichael

For the poll: I don't know. Nukes just might be better than sliced bread.

I voted bread, because I don't really see how a nuke could be defensive.

Now, you might say that interceptor missiles could be used instead of MAD, but don't you think they would have done that during the Cold War? The reason neither the Soviets or the Americans did, was because when you have thousands of nukes flying toward you, there is no way you're going to shoot them all down, even if you have thousands of Patriot missiles or whatever.

Also, future tech nations use nuclear warheads all the time in space. If you took nukes away from future tech nations, they'd be hard pressed to take down the shields of an Uber-1337 Death Cruiser of PHEAR.

The odd thing is, everyone against this last resolution was saying that without nukes, they could not defend their country. Leetonia has no nuclear weapons, but is more than capable of defending itself, with highly skilled and cybernetically enhanced commandos, a national animal that doubles as a warship, and a currency that also serves as an impervious infantry.

If another country launches a nuclear first strike against you and you have no viable method of counterattack, you lose. It's that simple. It doesn't matter how many cyborg ninja commandos you can field if, say, nine tenths of your country is dying from nuclear bombardment. Weapons of mass destruction obviously trump lesser weapons, and it is therefore apparent that the most effective deterrent to the use of such weapons is an ability and will to respond in kind.

The problem that was brought up before with nuclear weapons is that they have the potential to end civilisation and the world in a very short amount of time with little or no thought involved. Only an absolute ban on nuclear weapons could put an end to that risk.

Mostly true, but you seem to forget that NSUN resolutions have no impact on non-member nations. That being the case, a resolution to disarm would only disarm the NSUN and would therefore upset the balance of forces, potentially allowing non-member nations to safely launch nuclear first strikes without fear of reprisal.

MAD only works when everyone has nukes. Notice that no two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war.

That said, and as Cabinia already stated in part, depleted uranium munitions do not classify as weapons of mass destruction and therefore should not be the subject of a resolution purporting to disarm WMDs.

Okay, what I know about uranium mainly comes from nuclear power, and in those instances a depleted uranium fuel rod, unless properly disposed of could kill a small city in a matter of hours.

Completely different stuff. Spent fuel rods are quite dangerous, yes, but the DU used as ammunition would more properly be thought of as "really, really, really hard metal."

Has anyone developed a defensive nuclear weapon? After all, a nuke is a poor and overpriced option for intercepting other nukes when the tracking capability to intercept it with a conventional warhead is already in existence.

Actually, one of the main difficulties in intercepting an RV (reentry vehicle, essentially the warhead of an ICBM, for those who don't know) is not so much in tracking it -- although that is also fairly difficult with the precision required -- but in actually hitting it. Conventional AAM (air-to-air missile) and SAM (surface-to-air missile) warheads do not actually impact their targets, but are rather similar to hand grenades; they explode and send shards of titanium forward in a cone pattern at speeds of several hundred, perhaps several thousand, meters per second. The detonator of a missile is typically attached to a rapidly rotating laser -- when the laser hits metal (usually the targeted plane), the laser reflects back and the missile knows the target is inside the "cone of death." The missile detonates, the metal flies forward, and the plane falls apart. Problem: RVs move at speeds like, say, fourteen thousand knots. That means that, by the time the laser reflection is detected, the detonator activates, the main charge goes, and the titanium shards fly forward, the target will have actually already exited the kill zone.

Of course, it's much easier to just say "It work-ded!" in a game like NationStates. More glory to ya. :wink:

MAD only works when everyone has nukes. Notice that no two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war.


No, they just fight it out with intermediates (Cold War) or have border squabbles (India and Pakastan). Which is better than full out war... unless you liv ein a contested area, where it is war.

Minister Mar Darneka
Ambassador to the UN
The Most Serene Republic of Daryn

No, they just fight it out with intermediates (Cold War) or have border squabbles (India and Pakastan). Which is better than full out war... unless you liv ein a contested area, where it is war.

I think you said it best yourself with the phrase, "better than full out war." Your point, while true, doesn't negate mine.

For the poll: I don't know. Nukes just might be better than sliced bread.

<3

It's old hat now (or at least not as immediately important) but I think that a lot of the problems between the "No Nukes!" and "I reserve the right to nukes, but only a 'defensive' weapon" camps come down to the interpretation of a particular argument.

Can we agree that "nuclear defence" is a dumbed-down way of saying "psychological deterrant from first-strike use of nuclear weapons by an agressive oponent, relying upon the threat of either token or escalated retaliatory strike in kind" (with MAD technically being the subset that encompasses only the escalated retaliatory strike, but often used as a synonym for the lot). The (legitimate) supporters of this concept would of course never think of initiating any attack, whether or not that would provoke a response, but must be seen to be willing to respond if attacked.

I've also seen some confusion where "nuclear defence" has apparently been used as (or incorrectly understood to mean) "nuclear device interception" with conventional (or at least non-nuclear) devices.


As an aside, one 'Star Wars' plan to intercept nuclear warheads was to detonate other nuclear warheads in the vicinity of the incoming ICBMs, in space and prior to separation of the individual weapons. Whether that should be allowed is another argument, as the wide-volume effect could make this a whole lot more efficient than conventional missile/laser targetting of the incoming nasties but, when it comes to kettles of fish, that's a humdinger of an awkward case to support. As is the "nuclear-powered laser" where the energy from a mini-nuke is partially channeled to power a one-time laser. That sounds like a very hit-and-miss idea (especially if you miss!).

I am very pleased that you are trying to push this issue.
I was really sad when ppl were too concerned about their fuckin economy than the world they live on.
Those people should not exist on this planet


Work hard to pass this issue again

The most recent proopasal WAS OUTLAWED!!!

You corrupt people! I voted for hat resolution!

Why keep nukes

THEY KILL MILLIONs OF INNOCENT PEOPLE!

The most recent proopasal WAS OUTLAWED!!!

You corrupt people! I voted for hat resolution!

Why keep nukes

THEY KILL MILLIONs OF INNOCENT PEOPLE!If you would read the rest of the thread, you'd see why. I'll simplify it for you: If UN nations don't have nukes, non-UN nations can nuke the UN nations without having to worry about retalliation.