NationStates Jolt Archive

So many people submit proposals along the lines of "War is bad so lets get rid of all our nukes", without realising that the nations outside the UN have all got nuclear weapons and if the UN had none, then the other nations would be able to steamroll right across the UN by using nuclear bombs.

Now, there's generally two types of nuclear weapon - strategic and tactical. Tactical nuclear weapons are the sort used by generals against the opposing army - nuclear-warhead torpedoes to destroy aircraft carriers, small nuclear bombs dropped from carrier aircraft to destroy warships, short-range nuclear missiles used against the opposing army, nuclear surface-to-air missiles that destroy bomber fleets (back in the 50s when bomber fleets were expected). They are purely used as weapons against the other army, and are generally small nuclear warheads.

Strategic nuclear weapons are nuclear-warhead cruise missiles, strategic bombers (like the B-52, Avro Vulcan, etc) armed with nuclear bombs, ICBMs launched from submarines and silos, which are targetted against the enemy's cities and missile silos. These aren't fired by generals, but by political leaders, and are necessary for a cold war-style peace between powerful opposed nations. Without strategic nukes, one nation can force another to do what it wants by threatening to rain down nuclear bombs. Strategic nukes are necessary to prevent hostile non-UN nations from invading. Eliminating UN strategic nukes would mean the end of the UN.

So, next time someone submits a 'Ban nuclear weapons!' proposal, limit it to tactical nuclear weapons, the ones that are only used against the military. They can be used more easily than strategic nukes (which are a doomsday 'End of the world' weapon) and the fallout can cause much damage to the environment.

I don't think we should be banning either kind of nuke, to be honest - if we ban the tactical variety, then nations are more likely to use strategic nukes as a makeweight.

You can't use a strategic nuke against an aircraft carrier or a tank division. Strategic nukes are targetted at precise, fixed points, like the enemy's capital or nuke silos. Tactical nukes are used like ordinary bombs, just with a bigger bang.

On the same grounds that anti-personnel mines are illegal (they render large areas dangerous and useless for a long time after the war) tactical nukes should be limited, in my opinion.

Banning all nukes immediately wouldn't work, their are too many in the world and too many in UN member nations.
What may work is something like the START treaties, limiting the amounts and attempting to reduce them.

Emperor Besty

:headbang:

I said nothing about banning all nukes! Only tactical nukes, used as a military weapon. That can be done unilaterally without too much adverse effect.

Keep the SLBM submarines, the silos, the strategic bombers. But no nuclear torpedoes, nuclear artillery shells, short range cruise missiles, etc.

You can't use a strategic nuke against an aircraft carrier or a tank division. Strategic nukes are targetted at precise, fixed points, like the enemy's capital or nuke silos. Tactical nukes are used like ordinary bombs, just with a bigger bang.

On the same grounds that anti-personnel mines are illegal (they render large areas dangerous and useless for a long time after the war) tactical nukes should be limited, in my opinion.
That's not totally accurate. One can use GPS to throw a strategic nuclear weapon at a carrier battlegroup ( :D ), but on the other hand it's not totally accurate either.

OK, you could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy tactical targets, but it would be like shooting an ant - expensive and a waste of ammunition.

Heck, I'm playing devil's advocate here - I'm not pro-disarmament, but disposing of tactical nuclear warheads would leave the battlefield cleaner after a medium-scale conflict. If everyone's got low-powered nuclear weapons that won't trigger Doomsday when used, the temptation is to throw them about like firecrackers, which is bad for the country you're fighting in after all the shooting stops.

OK, you could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy tactical targets, but it would be like shooting an ant - expensive and a waste of ammunition.
Hey, when a nation has 2000 strategic nuclear missiles to throw around, one isn't likely to be missed. :D

Heck, I'm playing devil's advocate here - I'm not pro-disarmament, but disposing of tactical nuclear warheads would leave the battlefield cleaner after a medium-scale conflict. If everyone's got low-powered nuclear weapons that won't trigger Doomsday when used, the temptation is to throw them about like firecrackers, which is bad for the country you're fighting in after all the shooting stops.
Eh, just wait fifty years. The countryside will bounce back after a time. Just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well, 2000 strategic nuclear warheads is a bit of overkill in my opinion - are those RL figures? And each one is expensive - although, so is a carrier battle group.

Strategic nukes are primarily to scare opponants into not declaring large-scale war. Tactical nukes are to devastate a military force, and the piece of environment they happen to be standing/floating/flying on/through.

Yeah, I think the US and Russia has those figures. Going down some, though.

a) real life references.... god knows how many nuclear weapons and of what type the nations in NS have
b) oh no, not again... will you just let this topic die!!!!

No nukes should be banned for the simple reason that they are necessity for deterring the other nuclear nations. What ever the kind of nukes, tactical or strategic, all of them are created to deter other nations from attacking by providing a second strike capability with a massive retaliation. Only by having those two you can be sure that the other nations that are posing as a treat will be deterred.

Every nation that has nukes follows the logic of a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). In some way, nuclear weapons are actually securing peace on every level because nations that have nukes know that any kind of an arm conflict will escalade in to the nuclear exchange and a total destruction without a possibility of wining… and no one wants that.

No nukes should be banned for the simple reason that they are necessity for deterring the other nuclear nations.
okay..... contradiction....

I think I'm having deja vu. (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/the...ancycard8bg.jpg)

I think I'm having deja vu. (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg)

I fixed your broken link. ;)

Here's what you meant to post.

I think I'm having deja vu. (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg)

and how is that a contradiction?

I fixed your broken link. ;)

Here's what you meant to post.

I think I'm having deja vu. (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg)
Much thanks.

and how is that a contradiction?
because you are saying they should be banned and that they are a necessity within the one sentence.
please, can you just let tis topic die? there is a reason it hasnt been approved yet. there is over a 1:2 ratio of UN:non-UN nations, and most of those who arnt UN really hate the UN. you remove the nukes from the UN, you pretty much remove the UN altogether. also, there is 2 things:
a) the nukes will be moved to a puppet anyway, thus they arnt destroyed
b) the nukes will be destroyed.... by launching them at the proposer

because you are saying they should be banned and that they are a necessity within the one sentence.

go back an read one more time what I wrote... "No nukes should be banned for the simple reason that they are necessity for deterring the other nuclear nations."



I am new here so I did not know that you had this discussion before.

Good points in this thread. b) the nukes will be destroyed.... by launching them at the proposerI just wanted to say that this cracked me up.

I am new here so I did not know that you had this discussion before.

Well...that's not much of an excuse. You're a pretty smart person, I'll bet, so you could have figured out (by looking at the ages of some of the accounts on here) that the UN forum has been around for a while. Actually, most of the debates we have here were probably already horribly redundant by March 2003, and the game and the UN started in late 2002. We're in the fifth month of 2005 now, so how many times do you think the issues surrounding the nuclear arms have been debated to death over the past two years on the UN forum? I'll just say that it's...a lot. ;)