NationStates Jolt Archive


The Age Of The Nuclear Shield

New British Glory
09-03-2005, 01:27
Okay this is going to be a hypothetical but I think it has merits.

FIRST SCENARIO - ONE COUNTRY GETS ALL

Alright now lets say that China, in their drive for technological excellence, discover a shield that completely stops missiles from entering their territory. The missile and its nuclear contents simply disintergrate.

Now that would make China invunerable to M.A.D (Mutally Assured Destruction) and so effectively they could attack America and any other power without fear of the consequences. Essentially China could simply tell all powers to stand down and surrender because it can fire its own nuclear bombs at them but others cant fire their nuclear bombs at China.

SECOND SCENARIO - THE RETURN OF WAR

Alright now lets says that every nuclear weapon bearing country develops this shield and implements it at the same time. That would mean that the nuclear bomb would be, in effect useless. So we would have perhaps have a return to the nervous balances of power that characterised 19th Century Europe but this time on a global scale.

Discuss as freely as you wish. I just dreamed this up and wondered.
Potaria
09-03-2005, 01:28
I think the second scenario would be much more likely. It sure would suck either way, though.

It would depend upon who has the greatest military force on Earth, rather than the largest Nuclear arsenal (Russia).
31
09-03-2005, 01:32
MAD has assured that the world does not slide into a third world war, instead we get the joy that is small, bloody, petty squabbles for little gain on each side, yeah. . .

If nukes are rendered useless god help us for massive wars will come back with a vengence. This is the real reason nuclear shields and defense systems are so opposed by many groups. They don't want the nuclear deterrent to go away and they are right to a certain extent.
Robbopolis
09-03-2005, 01:34
MAD has assured that the world does not slide into a third world war, instead we get the joy that is small, bloody, petty squabbles for little gain on each side, yeah. . .

If nukes are rendered useless god help us for massive wars will come back with a vengence. This is the real reason nuclear shields and defense systems are so opposed by many groups. They don't want the nuclear deterrent to go away and they are right to a certain extent.

Personally, I find it amusing that most of the groups that are against nuclear weapons in the first place are also the ones against anything to protect us from nukes.
Potaria
09-03-2005, 01:34
Absolutely true. Nobody wants another stalemate like we had in WWI. Nobody.
New British Glory
09-03-2005, 01:39
Precisely.

As ironic as it is, the best way to summarise is: the nuclear bomb is the biggest weapon of peace ever.
Potaria
09-03-2005, 01:44
Sadly, that's the way it is.

Sucks, doesn't it?
31
09-03-2005, 01:45
I remember when I was a kid in the 80's watching the freeze movement and the disarm movement and even then I thought if we suddenly get rid of all nukes what is to stop the US and USSR from duking it out.
I never had any fear that the Soviets would launch an attack or that the US would. We were rivals but sane rivals.
The only thing I worry about now are the N. Koreans. They have a crazy enough leadership to launch. The Iranians would be a pain having them but would most likely never use them.

As far as the posted senario goes, I think the second senario is much more likely. Many nations and alliances developing various sheilds and larger wars returning. However, economic interdependence really puts a damper on starting large wars. I may dislike your nation but if we fight we will severly damage our respective economies.
Takuma
09-03-2005, 01:46
As ironic as it is, the best way to summarise is: the nuclear bomb is the biggest weapon of peace ever.

True. Even though there's always a fear, I don't think any leader is stupid enough to actually start a nuclear war. Therefore, general peace.
Potaria
09-03-2005, 01:46
I remember when I was a kid in the 80's watching the freeze movement and the disarm movement and even then I thought if we suddenly get rid of all nukes what is to stop the US and USSR from duking it out.
I never had any fear that the Soviets would launch an attack or that the US would. We were rivals but sane rivals.
The only thing I worry about now are the N. Koreans. They have a crazy enough leadership to launch. The Iranians would be a pain having them but would most likely never use them.

As far as the posted senario goes, I think the second senario is much more likely. Many nations and alliances developing various sheilds and larger wars returning. However, economic interdependence really puts a damper on starting large wars. I may dislike your nation but if we fight we will severly damage our respective economies.


I doubt that Kim Jong Il has the balls. They said on CNN that after he made an Anti-America speech, he hurried to a hidden bunker and stayed there for almost a week.
Takuma
09-03-2005, 01:47
I doubt that Kim Jong Il has the balls. They said on CNN that after he made an Anti-America speech, he hurried to a hidden bunker and stayed there for almost a week.

But do you really believe CNN? <.<

Edit: I do however agree with your first sentence.
Robbopolis
09-03-2005, 01:49
As far as the posted senario goes, I think the second senario is much more likely. Many nations and alliances developing various sheilds and larger wars returning. However, economic interdependence really puts a damper on starting large wars. I may dislike your nation but if we fight we will severly damage our respective economies.

I don't know about that. In 1938, Germany's biggest rading partner was France. In 1940, Germany's biggest trading partner was the Soviet Union. Wars are generally begun for illogical reasons.

As for large wars returning, I doubt it. Given the advances in technology and tactics, it appears that we have hit the age of the geurilla. They don't disrupt the economy nearly so much.
Robbopolis
09-03-2005, 01:50
I doubt that Kim Jong Il has the balls. They said on CNN that after he made an Anti-America speech, he hurried to a hidden bunker and stayed there for almost a week.

So he's paranoid. That doesn't mean that he's afraid. Stalin was paranoid too, and he still started a couple of wars.
Takuma
09-03-2005, 01:53
So he's paranoid. That doesn't mean that he's afraid. Stalin was paranoid too, and he still started a couple of wars.

Yes, but he's afraid enough.

What N.Korea is doing is doing is what the bully is doing. Saying "I have the power", but in reality he's afraid of getting suspended. Or beat up. Or something. You get the idea.