Why won't countries with nuclear weapons go to war?

[tockle]

Why won't countries armed with nuclear weapons ever go to war with each other? Or will they?

People commonly argue that people are rational enough to not destroy everything they know, but look at some of the world leaders out there... There's some loony people who could very easily do some loony things if they so choose.

[Athorha]

Pretty easy to be forced into doing terrible things without being 100% for it (nazis/suicide bombers etc etc.) but destroying life on the entire planet/large portion would need unquestionable beliefs...

[Deleted]

Uhm, why would they?

[Catta]

because of fail-deadly systems... I could see Kim-Jong Ill pressing the button if he was close to death though... good thing he doesnt have much or any

[tockle]

Kim Jong Il. Besides the possible lack of nuclear weapons, what would stop him from destroying humanity? His thought process is so effed up he could very well snap and launch a nuclear holocaust.

[Deleted]

Why won't countries armed with nuclear weapons ever go to war with each other? Or will they?

People commonly argue that people are rational enough to not destroy everything they know, but look at some of the world leaders out there... There's some loony people who could very easily do some loony things if they so choose.

Mmm.. Well, this is why the idea of the ayatollahs gaining nuclear weaponry frightens me and gets my neo-con senses tingling. But, hopefully most nuclear armed states are too distracted by price wars to ever go as far as nuclear war and mutual annihilation. If it didn't happen because of the Bay of Pigs, I don't think much these days could bring on a politically invoked nuclear apocalypse. Faith-based, on the other hand, is an entirely different game.

[Anakso]

because of fail-deadly systems... I could see Kim-Jong Ill pressing the button if he was close to death though... good thing he doesnt have much or any

Kim-Jong Ill was who came to mind when I first opened this thread too, though I have no idea if he does have nuclear weapons, I thought he did.

[Deleted]

Kim Jong Il. Besides the possible lack of nuclear weapons, what would stop him from destroying humanity? His thought process is so effed up he could very well snap and launch a nuclear holocaust.

He would not do it.
we would wipe him out, then who would he gloat to that he gets 3 - 4 holes in one every time he plays golf
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...rea_06_16.html

[Nightfury Treann]

but what would happen with the ones with no nuclear weapons?

<--- country

[tockle]

What other reasons besides mutually assured destruction would deter nuclear warfare? Inevitably, all the other consequences seem trivial seeing as humans may cease to exist following any nuclear engagement.

[Darkspectre]

it's simple really, what would any leader gain by initiating a nuclear strike? nothing, in fact, they stand to lose more than they would ever gain. not to mention that those "unstable" leaders who are most likely to, don't have the capability to deploy their nukes effectively. sure, they could SOME damage, but not enough to stop severe retaliation above and beyond their own imagining.

[tockle]

but what would happen with the ones with no nuclear weapons?

<--- country

Boom.
10chars

[Tragedia]

The USA has nuclear weapons and they are in war.

[Nightfury Treann]

Boom.
10chars

oh noes, gotta go then, help me tockle!!!

[tockle]

it's simple really, what would any leader gain by initiating a nuclear strike? nothing, in fact, they stand to lose more than they would ever gain. not to mention that those "unstable" leaders who are most likely to, don't have the capability to deploy their nukes effectively. sure, they could SOME damage, but not enough to stop severe retaliation above and beyond their own imagining.

Hypothetically, 10 years in the future, KJII is on his death bed & wants to take the world with him. North Korea has the capabilities to destroy the planet 10 times over by this point, who stops him? Would his successors intervene?

Taking it one further, a faith based leader is in the same position, one with massive following. Do his followers stop him? The former is unlikely to happen, but the scenario just described seems reasonable considering the beliefs behind many of these people. Life begins after death etc etc

---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 01:50 AM ----------

The USA has nuclear weapons and they are in war.

Not at war with a group capable of nuclear warfare. Therefore the option for a nuclear engage isn't on the table. Sure we could take them out, but they couldn't retaliate leading to a nuclear holocaust.

[JSG31494]

MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. If Country A has nukes and attacks country B that has nukes, with nukes, it is 99% likely to result in multiple parties declaring nuclear war.

[starlord]

Well to paraphrase a movie, "what good are the fruits of your labor if you've just blown the shit outta them".

Radioactive land is useless for conquering or harvesting.

[Bigbamboozal]

WHO DROPPED NUKE NUKES?!?!? america DROPPED NUKE NUKES!!!!!
Seriously, I believe the american hunger for destruction is evil at best. If I am worried about a nuke fight, I think of the america.
Say what you want, but I do.
Since they are the only ones who have used them in combat, on civilian targets. reasons sheasons, I just don't give a flying fuck what they are, they did it. Twice.
Trust? 0%
Fuck america. Yup, I said it. I will say it again. FUCK AMERICA.
I don't care if you call what department.
Infract me all you like, america is a tosser country, full of hate, with itchy trigger fingers, and not to be trusted. ever.
america, out for itself, fuck everyone else.
You can't deny that. So why should the rest of the planet feel anything except a need to exterminate america?
Winning friends and influencing enemies. america can't do either right.
So, by default, you have 'the bomb', b/c that's all america will ever have.
If you have worries, let it be over the real madmen and fools, the retardation that is america.

<Infracted> After reading this post, I felt it violated our "No Nation-Bashing" rule.

[Artran]

Why won't countries armed with nuclear weapons ever go to war with each other? Or will they?

People commonly argue that people are rational enough to not destroy everything they know, but look at some of the world leaders out there... There's some loony people who could very easily do some loony things if they so choose.

If ONE country launched a nuke, im 99% sure we would all die.

Reason: Every other country with nukes would start shooting and the whole world would die because of radiation or just..bombs?

PLEASE lets not have a nuclear war! >.>

---------- Post added 2011-12-08 at 09:01 PM ----------

Hypothetically, 10 years in the future, KJII is on his death bed & wants to take the world with him. North Korea has the capabilities to destroy the planet 10 times over by this point, who stops him? Would his successors intervene?

Taking it one further, a faith based leader is in the same position, one with massive following. Do his followers stop him? The former is unlikely to happen, but the scenario just described seems reasonable considering the beliefs behind many of these people. Life begins after death etc etc

---------- Post added 2011-12-09 at 01:50 AM ----------



Not at war with a group capable of nuclear warfare. Therefore the option for a nuclear engage isn't on the table. Sure we could take them out, but they couldn't retaliate leading to a nuclear holocaust.

If we nuked them we could say goodbye to all that oil. LOL

[Flaks]

The same reason they don't disarm the nukes either, because the entire purpose of the bomb is to DETER war. Not to start it, end it or escalate it. Just to make sure that one powerful country doesn't attempt to invade another.