Who will first nuke...

[Deleted]

and learned that the long term effects of nukes are just not worth the humanitarian costs.

Did they really? It pretty much worked as they wanted it to. Japan surrendered without a fight after that had happened.
Nixon for one wanted to seriously consider using it, and that was in 1972.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/...-and-the-bomb/

Also, if the US don't want to use nukes any more, why keep so many thermonuclear warheads stockpiled? (FYI, compared to Hiroshima / Nagasaki, thermonuclear weapons are over 100 times more powerful!)
You have 7.3 THOUSAND warheads stockpiled! Is that because they learned that they're just not worth the humanitarian costs?

They have them because they want to be able to use them if need be. And "if need be" is an ultimate last resort, one to be used if national security is that much at risk, and cannot be dealt with in any other way. The concern isn't the humanitarian losses involved with a (thermo)nuclear weapon; it's what will happen afterwards. A nuclear war can destroy large parts of your own country (expecting them to succesfully fire 'em back at ya). Game theory is what stopped the cold war from becoming world war 3, not humanitarian concerns.

Neither the u.S or Russia are that stupid. If they're going to be used, its going to be by a small rogue state or terrorist group.

I doubt it. Terrorist states would know they'd be completely decimated, but then again, they might not consider dying honorably a bad thing.

[Crissi]

Did they really? It pretty much worked as they wanted it to. Japan surrendered without a fight after that had happened.
Nixon for one wanted to seriously consider using it, and that was in 1972.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/...-and-the-bomb/

Also, if the US don't want to use nukes any more, why keep so many thermonuclear warheads stockpiled? (FYI, compared to Hiroshima / Nagasaki, thermonuclear weapons are over 100 times more powerful!)
You have 7.3 THOUSAND warheads stockpiled! Is that because they learned that they're just not worth the humanitarian costs?

They have them because they want to be able to use them if need be. And "if need be" is an ultimate last resort, one to be used if national security is that much at risk, and cannot be dealt with in any other way. The concern isn't the humanitarian losses involved with a (thermo)nuclear weapon; it's what will happen afterwards. A nuclear war can destroy large parts of your own country (expecting them to succesfully fire 'em back at ya). Game theory is what stopped the cold war from becoming world war 3, not humanitarian concerns.


I doubt it. Terrorist states would know they'd be completely decimated, but then again, they might not consider dying honorably a bad thing.

Considered, but not used because it was a stupid idea.

and we keep them because of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Think of it as a relic from the cold war. If we use them, it will be after it is used on us.

Also, depending on the terrorist cells, they wouldnt care after the fact. Killing many Americans with a nuke would be worth getting themselves obliterated.

[Kuja]

In movies it's usually Russia.

[Deleted]

The US has already used pre-emptive nuclear strikes. However, perhaps with that knowledge, Russia may be even more on edge and susceptible to strike first.

[Deleted]

Considered, but not used because it was a stupid idea.

A stupid idea yes; but not primarily because of humanitarian concerns.

[Deleted]

Considered, but not used because it was a stupid idea.

and we keep them because of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Think of it as a relic from the cold war. If we use them, it will be after it is used on us.

Also, depending on the terrorist cells, they wouldnt care after the fact. Killing many Americans with a nuke would be worth getting themselves obliterated.

Mutually assured destruction is a sad concept. That when a nuclear weapon has been fire at us and there's nothing we can do except die, in our last moments we want to kill millions of civilians out of spite and revenge. I think I prefer martyrdom.

[Deleted]

Strategic Nukes were US doctrine during the cold war and I doubt that would change during a Russian invasion, strategic nukes would also not provoke MAD as they do not target civilians or civilian infrastructure.

[PickleballAce]

The United States is always dropping nukes in anger in the same manner that the German government is always rounding up and exterminating millions of Jews.

[Crissi]

A stupid idea yes; but not primarily because of humanitarian concerns.

Well that was Nixon for you. I think our modern Presidents are a LITTLE more pro-humanitarian than him.

[Deleted]

Mutually assured destruction is a sad concept. That when a nuclear weapon has been fire at us and there's nothing we can do except die, in our last moments we want to kill millions of civilians out of spite and revenge. I think I prefer martyrdom.

I'm curious if that concept is still valid nowadays. Looking at the effectiveness of Israel's rocket shields and radar (= the state of technology on a small scale), and then considering the budget that the USA spends on national defense, I have serious doubts that any kind of (ultra) long range missle would ever strike a US target, unless the national security services would choose to allow it to.

Which would then again raise the question: why keep so many nukes stockpiled?

[Crissi]

Mutually assured destruction is a sad concept. That when a nuclear weapon has been fire at us and there's nothing we can do except die, in our last moments we want to kill millions of civilians out of spite and revenge. I think I prefer martyrdom.

It may be a sad concept, but I see it in the same vein as "do unto others as you would have done unto you".

[Deleted]

It may be a sad concept, but I see it in the same vein as "do unto others as you would have done unto you".

My motto is better, "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you".

[Raband]

More likely to be a person/group than a country as far as I can tell.

And the answer to that will be whichever can get their hands on one first.

Countries are reducing their potential generally, while some groups are actively chasing them

[Deleted]

My motto is better, "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you".

Isn't that a little dangerous without the assurance of 100 % correct knowledge of others intend?

[Deleted]

It may be a sad concept, but I see it in the same vein as "do unto others as you would have done unto you".

The problem is that a government condemns an entire people with their decision. It would only be "do unto others" if there were no civilian casualties, because the ones who suffer aren't the ones who fired.

[Crissi]

My motto is better, "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you".

but I like people viewing me as the victim as I retaliate in overwhelming force!

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that a government condemns an entire people with their decision. It would only be "do unto others" if there were no civilian casualties, because the ones who suffer aren't the ones who fired.

Which is why I dont think either the U.S or Russia will do such a thing.

[Deleted]

My motto is better, "Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you".

Mine wins. "Don't do unto others."

Everyone dreams of world peace, none of them can stop thinking in terms of "bad guys".

[Slant]

The US has already used pre-emptive nuclear strikes. However, perhaps with that knowledge, Russia may be even more on edge and susceptible to strike first.

MAD. Japan worked because they had nothing to retaliate with. The US made pretty clear in Nagasaki that they'll just annihilate city after city until Japan surrenders or simply is no more. There's not much of a choice and next to no danger to the US.

That was the only time in human history a nuclear attack was strategically feasible. As soon as the Russians discovered how to do it, it became a strategical liability and ever since there is no point in nuclear warfare other than theorizing about it and confirming over and over and over again that... it's a weird game. The only winning move is not to play.

[Azerox]

If WW3 happends the USA will go full balistic and take world controle. Nuking everything that is not friendly. All out.

Russians are cool and such, but they wont have time to react.

[Slant]

If WW3 happends the USA will go full balistic and take world controle. Nuking everything that is not friendly. All out.

Russians are cool and such, but they wont have time to react.

LOL... the love is strong in this one...