Will There Ever be A Nuclear War?

While India and Pakistan have nukes, their wars have been essentially border wars, with neither side even remotely thinking of invading, so I can't see them using nukes against each other for fear of either regimes existence.

Israel will absolutely use their nukes if they are invaded and they have no other option. They will take as many enemies down with the destruction of Israel as possible.

North Korea will collapse eventually, without the need to invade it. It blusters a lot about war, but the truth is they probably don't have enough gas for their armour or troop transports to make it across the border.

China is an ancient culture. They would not use their nukes unless attacked first.

Even if it got close, the human factor could very well pre-empt their use. At least two times in history, a russian commander refused an order to launch.

 

Murphy's Law indicates there will be one sooner or later.

But the logic of MAD will tend to keep it small. Russians are chess players and Americans were poker players. MAD spoke to both.

Will MAD speak to the fools in Iran?

 

Yeah, I could definitely see that after a war starts, but because of the nuclear threat, I was wondering if any would start at all.

It's a possibily, definitely. But...it's still so hard to see. I mean, even if you are losing, during a conventional war, launching nukes against the aggressor- that will most definitely be returned- changes nothing, but I guess it would be a case of "we both go down". Sad.

I think you're a little too invested in the Israel thing. First, you're forgetting that Israel not using nukes is probably linked to the very real problem of any state using nukes in this day and age. It breaks a very delicate, somewhat unofficial agreement between nations that is something like "if you won't than I won't". I don't think anyone can take the idea of firing a nuke off as a light option, even when being invaded.

Sheesh, Israel is one of the 10 leading powers in the world with nuclear armaments, far outweighing anything their opposition has (except, probably, Pakistan).

Sheesh, the relationship between the US and Israel is quite obvious. I didn't say anything about where Israel got it's nuclear technology from, I'm talking about the political and military relationship between the two.

Sheesh, you accuse me of being an anti-Semite, why? Because I said something negative about Israel? It's more likely you are one of those Semite-loons who immediately and aggressively defend Israel for any and everything. Sheesh.

But, Sheesh. Sheeeeesh. Stop saying Sheesh. It's so Sheeshing annoying.

Oh, and Nuclear Subs...

http://rt.com/news/israel-dolphin-submarine-nuclear-598/

Nuclear sub's are used to position nuclear armament for deployment. They are a mobile weapons platform. Are you researching your butthole?

Sheesh...

 

That's the flaw to MAD. It only works if the leadership are rational actors.

 

No, "Nuclear Sub" is a description of the propulsion of the ship, not what type of weapons it carries.

And the Dolphin class is a diesel submarine, not nuclear.

As I said, research my friend. The Dolphin never has been and never will be a "Nuclear Sub".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_class_submarine

Now, do you want to try again? That is research, and this time I even referenced it for you, to prove I am not "talking out my butthole". Normally I do not even bother to reference such minutia, but I guess I needed to this time.

And come now, referencing Russia Today?

 

Naa, he must be watching to much Press TV. They always get it wrong. I am sorry to say but a UK MP George Galloway worked for Press TV and he always used to say it about Israel having nuclear submarines or the UK has nuclear submarines in the South Atlantic, trying to make out they were SSBN and nuclear threat to South America. There is also The Young Turks, where people get this utter rubbish from. They tryed to make out that the F-35 was going to cost $1 trillion to get into service, they forget to mention it was over the 30 plus years life of the program, they also said the US was paying all this cost and the other partner countries were taking a free rid off the US tax payer, which is rubbish in the case of the UK. Oh and they always say Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because Israel does. There are loads of these people on Youtube.

 

With Pakistan the issue is their relatively dodgy infrastructure and the chance of nukes either being used by an irresponsible government or accidentally (or not) a terrorist group. India wouldn't hesitate to retaliate.

With North Korea the fear is that they'll unload their artillery aimed at Seoul. That's a significant danger. If they have a nuclear weapon it's not inconceivable that in a scenario such as the one you mentioned, a failing dictator will decide he has nothing to lose.

 

Pakistan has been warned several times by the United States to shore up it's Nuclear Security.

In the event some extremist element in Pakistan were to take control of one of Pakistan's Nuclear sites...the U.S. would not hesitate to air drop in tens of thousands of American Troops. If a terrorist group was to hold a Pakistani Missile silo hostage...the U.S. would strike it with deep penetrating bombs even perhaps a nuclear one if necessary.

AboveAlpha

 

Problem with that is that nobody would know until the nukes had already transferred hands. Once that happens, either they'll destroy their target or detonate it if threatened. Either case isn't much fun.

None of this would be a problem if the United States hadn't proliferated weapons in Pakistan, contrary to treaties it itself created.

 

Both Pakistan and India already had the know how to design and develop Nukes. The problem is to be able to get their hands on Weapons Grade Uranium or Plutonium.

Any kid who is going to MIT in my state could design and build a H-Bomb over a weekend.

Again the issue is fuel.

AboveAlpha

 

Obviously. It's not like they aided them by giving them a publicly available diagram of a nuclear weapon - the Whistleblower claims they were given critical equipment and knowledge for the refining of Uranium.

 

Well...that is what they would need.

AboveAlpha

 

I do watch TYT, even though I'm a Libertarian and disagree with them on about 40% of the issues.

Anyway, I think the West too often has double standards on the traditional principle of territorial sovereignty. It's not up to us to say what internal Iranian policy should be, just as it's not up to Iran to say what internal Australian or American policy should be. Sure, Iran signed the NPT, and that's definitely significant, but it's complicated by the fact that Iran signed the treaty before its 1979 revolution, when it had a US installed dictator as its Shah.

In any case, there's little evidence that Iran has actually crossed the line from the right to peacefully use nuclear technology (as guaranteed by the NPT), to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. At the very least, according to the evidence countries like the United States and Israel have violated Iran's sovereign right to peacefully use nuclear technology to a greater degree than Iran has proliferated nuclear weapons.

At a stretch Iran should be freed from the NPT. I don't see many demanding that the states of the US be held to account for the treaties signed before the revolution.

I have similar thoughts on the NPT as I do on gun control. It's completely and utterly useless, because any enemy state that wants nuclear weapons will simply ignore the treaty and we're back to square one: it only affects law-abiding nations.

 

Actually, it is not that simple. The calculations and measurements need to be precise, or you have a fizzle. And yes, that is a technical term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

This is especially important if the bomb is of the implosion type. If everything is not engineered perfectly, you have a failure to implode and a dud.

I may not think much of the North Koreans, but I would also never try to claim that their scientists were idiots. And for decades their scientists have attended some of the finest schools in the world (including MIT). Yet, they are having problems in designing a fully functional warhead.

 

Agreed. It's not just the plans that are important, but the technology to to execute those plans. That includes plans for precise measuring devices, centrifuges, refinement of materials, electronics and a host of other supporting technology.

Additionally, classified material isn't just technical secrets, but can also be done for the compilation of information. For example, the name and address of a US nuclear engineering scientist might be found on the Web, but if a government worker compiled all the names and addresses of US nuclear engineers that data would probably be classified as Confidential or higher.

 

Why do we have to sacrifice lives of the GIs when we could nuke the enemy? This fear of the bomb is only valid if nuclear powers fight one another. Who cares if dirtbag countries protest at the UN petting zoo? I care more about having to sacrifice the lives of our young men because of this unnecessary inhibition.

And why can't we destroy the nuclear facilities in North Korea and Pakistan, especially if we assassinate those who would give the order to launch before we could destroy all of the nukes?

 

Urp.

Sorry, but I would willingly go into combat, and would even sacrifice myself so that no nuke was ever used, even against our worst enemies.

Myself, I could really not care less about any "country", but I care about the people in the country. I think that the use of atomic weapons against Japan was a good thing for many reasons, one of them was that it ended the war quickly, but also gave an example of how horrible these things are and why they should never be used again.

I care about lives, and lives of our servicemen. But not at the expense of letting the "Nuclear Genie" out of the bottle.

And we can't just "destroy the facilities" because they have learned from our own Manhattan Project. use multiple facilities, each working on different techniques, so there is no way you can hit them all.

And "assassinating those who would push the button" should be an obvious failure. Every nation has a "chain of command", and if you bump off the top guy, then the next takes over. Kill 1 or 2 of the top guys, then you get those of lesser abilities, who might well panic and decide to "push the button" since he knows he or she is likely already dead, and wants to go out with revenge first.

Or if you just take out enough of the leadership that the nation fragments, and you may end up with 3 or 4 warlords who all have nuclear weapons. I know this was one of the biggest fears after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. What to do with all of the missiles and bombs that were scattered from East Germany to Kamchatka. We were lucky there that say Georgia did not decide to keep the nukes on their territory, then use them to threaten Russia at a later date.

 

While I agree with your desire to protect our own, it's like saying "There someone on this block who presents a danger to our community! Let's lynch him, kill his family and burn down his home!!!"

In the global community it's important to set a standard of laws for the obvious reason that the alternative is lawlessness. The first Gulf war was condemned by most nations as illegal because it violated international law. If there was no international law, then it would simply be "might makes right". Not bad if you're #1, not so good if you are #27.

 

If we keep thinking the wimpy, suicidal pacifist way, we will soon be #27.

 

Nations which think the US is wimpy, suicidal and pacifist often find out the hard way we are not.

 

Got that right.

I have been hearing that as long as I can remember, and it has yet to ever be true. And all of our enemies since 1775 has been underestimating the US and it's ability to do things when it sets it's mind to it.

The only way we will ever become #2 is if there is a major political shift to cause is to either become isolationist (#1 threat), or fragment into multiple parties so no party is able to gain a majority and political gridlock becomes the norm.

 

Agreed. Historically, Americans tend to be isolationist. Lately there has been some secessionist rabble rousing. Such an action would do more to make the US into a third rate power than a bunch of college-aged tree huggers blocking traffic on Wall Street which is why I think such talk is just political BS.

 

You are talking about an old style Fission Bomb as there are several types.

LINK...https://www.google.com/search?q=fis...GFc3E4APv4YHQCQ&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=679

AboveAlpha

 

I know, I even mentioned the implosion type, which is the most effective design. But you can get a fizzle in gun types as well - especially if there is not enough material for supercriticality, they do not fuse with sufficient pressure, or there are to many impurities.

And all a Fusion bomb is is a fission bomb that is surrounded by the materials that then trigger the fusion reaction, normally hydrogen isotopes like deuterium and tritium. Because you need the heat and pressure of the fission reaction to start the fusion reaction. This is why Thermonuclear Weapons are still "dirty". If we could trigger the reaction without an atomic weapon in the center you would get a massively effective and efficient weapon, with almost no radioactive fallout.

In fact, that is what many believed that Hitler had ordered his scientists to attempt, direct fusion with exploding spheres of deuterium ("Heavy Water").

 

Islam is our mortal enemy. No viable nation recognizes its enemy's property rights. The Muslim-owned oil finances the jihad. It must be confiscated. We have the military to do it. If we don't, we are patsies and pushovers, no matter what our might is potentially.