<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 25 2003, 04:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 25 2003, 04:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and use that as a basis of a defense policy. That's more warped than the minds of some people I know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So why USA has nukes if not to keep the possible invading country afraid? For use? Or do you suggest that Israel/France has nukes for attack, instead of defence? Many countries use MAD as a basis of a defence policy. Or if not MAD, at least ADA, Assured Destruction of Attacker.
And could you sum up your thoughts in this thread? Should Denmark be able to get nukes? What about Vietnam? Who is to decide? The strongest?
Read the entire statement dread. Don't reply to half of a whole sentance. Take what I said in context.
I said we shouldn't give everyone nukes <b>relying solely on the fact that a nuclear exhange hasn't occured yet.</b> and assume that will mean peace via. MAD.
Do you <i>honestly</i> believe that if everyone has nukes there will be no more war because of MAD? Based just on the fact that we haven't had an exchange so far?
[QUOTE=Burncycle,Dec 25 2003, 05:46 PM] Read the entire statement dread. Don't reply to half of a whole sentance. Take what I said in context.
I said we shouldn't give everyone nukes <b>relying solely on the fact that a nuclear exhange hasn't occured yet.</b> and assume that will mean peace via. MAD.
Do you <i>honestly</i> believe that if everyone has nukes there will be no more war because of MAD? Based just on the fact that we haven't had an exchange yet? [/QUOTE]
I don't want to fight with you. If you kindly read the whole thread...
[QUOTE=Hübel-MonsE]Your plan to hand out nukes is still dumb, and I mean that as a friend [/QUOTE] My answer: Fair enough How about we get rid of all the nukes except we give few to the worlds space agencies in case your big-space-rock-hits-our-earth-rock scenario takes place?
I admitted giving nukes everyone wasn't the brightest idea.
Edit: Damn, I can't get these quotes to work. I. Hate. This. Board. Or this board hates me.
The world should stockpile its WMDs in Switzerland. I heard that they take good care of everything deposited there. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not fixing your quotes anymore, Dread. Wallow in your own quotational incompetence, my friend! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My answer: Fair enough How about we get rid of all the nukes except we give few to the worlds space agencies in case your big-space-rock-hits-our-earth-rock scenario takes place? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not a bad idea actually. But still, pie in the sky - WMD's will never go away. Now we can only work on non-proliferation and limited disarmament (like South Africa, who had israeli-assisted nukes, but got rid of them post-apartheid). The major players will never give them up though, and as the world's oil supplies dwindle nuclear power will be a more and more attractive option to countries. With nuclear power comes nuclear weapons, very often...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Relying on MAD to prevent war is idiotic. You can't just say "Well, a nuclear exchange hasn't taken place yet......so......" and use that as a basis of a defense policy. That's more warped than the minds of some people I know. Basing your opinion on that, and then saying "Hey, if we extrapolate from that and give EVERYONE nukes, no one will ever use them!" is what boggles the mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well....apart from MAD, what choice do we have? Nations with nukes arn't going to give them up. This prompts other nations without nukes to try and develop their own, because one big advantage of being a nuclear power is that you tend not to be invaded. You can't defend your nations against nukes. Even this so-called missile shield only provides a percentage chance of interpecting incomming warheads, plus you're faced with the problem of missile submarines just off your coastline launching nukes that hit their targets in less than a minute, negating much of the proposed "shield".
So you have nukes, and your neighbour/rival has nukes as well. You can either:
a) Convince him to dismantle his nukes, whilst promising to dismantle yours. This is a long shot at best.
b) Invade him and take his nukes away. Tricky, seeing as when you invade he will very probably use his nukes to stop you, unless he is Saddam and doesn't actually have any.
c) Rely on MAD to prevent war from breaking out between your two countries.
It's crazy, but c) does offer you the best chance. MAD is around because it's pretty much the only option when two nations have nukes. Now yes, we say it works because it hasn't failed yet. But we really don't have much of a choice.
Now as to which nations should have WMDs? I believe that no nation should have biological or chemical weapons: the boundaries with those particular weapons are too hazy and their potential to be manufactured easily is too high. When it comes to nukes however, I tend to follow the same logic that the world seems to have followed: if you get nukes, you're allowed to have them. Frankly, if you get nukes, who is going to take them away? The US? They havn't done it yet. The UN? Yeah right. Every nation that has aquired nukes has not had them taken away from them. The only nuclear power I can think of who no longer has nukes is South Africa, and they dismantled them of their own accord. Libya and Iran have turned over their programs, but they didn't have nukes yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe that no nation should have biological or chemical weapons: the boundaries with those particular weapons are too hazy and their potential to be manufactured easily is too high.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? Bio and chem weapons are a "poor mans nuke". They provide the MAD you hold so dearly, at a fraction of the cost.
My only real beef is with _small_ stockpiles of nuclear weapons in countries that are unstable. It's a dangerous combination, and MAD may fail there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? Bio and chem weapons are a "poor mans nuke". They provide the MAD you hold so dearly, at a fraction of the cost. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bio and chem weapons don't represent the same level of power as nukes. Certainly they're strong (and given advances in genetics and biology, selective bio-weapons may become the nukes of tommorow), but as it stands, nukes represent such a massive scaling up of conflict. They're instant-destruction weapons with the ability to completely wipe out an entire country's population in a matter of minutes. But the biggest factor in their power is that fact that there is no defense against them. You can't immunise your population, nor can you issue them gas-masks or chem-suits. You have a few minutes to try and herd a few thousand people into shelters that may or may not work and then your whole country is gone. That's what makes them such a potent deterrance.
"You hold so dearly". Oh that's cute. I like the way you assumed that I just love the idea of 60,000 odd nuclear weapons aimed directly at my family and friends. I never said I liked it, or that I "held it dear". I simply said that we don't have an alternative right now. Why don't you actually suggest an alternative instead of trying to get a cheap shot at me?
Eh, they're plenty powerful. And they _are_ a deterrent. Why do you think there was no widespread use of chemical or biological weapons in WWII? Both sides certainly HAD them.
And I'm sorry if you took that as a cheap shot- it wasn't ment to be.
But I still think chem/bio weapons are plenty effective as a deterrent for the whole MAD thing. I doubt saddam would have invaded kuwait if kuwait had the ability to plaster baghdad, tikrit, and other major population centers with chem/bio weapons.
Lets set up an example. Say it's 1991 and Saddam Hussein wants kuwait, but kuwait has chemical/biological weapons. Now, saddam has them too. Regardless, if he REALLY badly wants kuwait, he's got three options. a) Invade kuwait, preparing the population for any retalitory strike. b) Invade kuwait, screw preparing the population. It's too much money to be worth it. c) Don't invade, the risks are too great since Kuwait has chemical/biological weapons.
Alrighty, so lets discuss the options in detail. Say saddam goes with option a- he feels that he can protect his people (as you said, issue them gas masks and chem suits) and strike kuwait with impunity. Even if they attack, they can shrug it off!
But we're not talking WWI here. This is a full scale retaliatory strike- Gas masks alone won't cut it. We're not talking puny tokyo subway attacks, or anthrax letter attacks either. We're talking about weapons grade nerve agent, airbursted in efficient concentrations over major and minor population centers. You need full chem suits, MOPP 4 stuff, to even stand a _chance_. So he buys chemical suits for all his people. Millions of people, hundreds of millions of dollars. Then he trains the citizens how to use them. Hundreds million more dollars. Then he sets up a network capable of evacuating and decontaminating people within 48 hours from the initial strike. (You can't stay in those MOPP suits for very long). Thats even more hundreds of millions of dollars more. If they get plastered with weapons grade biological weapons as well, he's got to set up aid stations and not only decontaminate the population, but also provide treatment for the widespread illness and plan for the massive loss of crops and livestock. Hundreds of millions more. Then you prepare for follow up strikes, which means you have to go through the decon process all over again. This isn't even considering the long term medical costs.
So if kuwait spends a hundred million on chemical weapons and delivery systems, and Iraq wants to be able to protect its citizens, they must spend probably <b>billions</b> at this point to prepare. Even then the death toll would be in the millions most likely in the initial attack and years following.
Sounds pretty damn cost effective to me.
Course, I wouldn't put it past saddam to go with option b, only giving some of his people protection (his supporters and high level officials) and saying screw the rest. If his people suffer and die, then it's kuwaits fault of course! Good PR, and he stays in power while anyone who is not a loyalist is considered an "acceptable loss".
But lets give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he chooses option c- no invasion. That's the only sure way to keep his people safe, if he's looking out for his best interest. I honestly don't think saddam would have invaded if kuwait had the capability to retaliate on a major scale with these kinds of weapons. And the scary thing is they're the _poor_ mans option. While still expensive, it's cheaper and easier than a nuclear program.
All three types (nuclear, biological, chemical) are categorized as weapons of mass destruction, and all three can work as a deterrent under the "MAD" philosophy.
Nuclear weapons are NICE compared to a serious, <i>full scale</i> chemical/biological attack. Nasty nasty stuff. Radiation burns and cancer from nukes are similar in nastyness to the effects of nerve agent/biological agents- but at least with nukes a good percent are vaporized and go quickly. We should be so lucky.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 26 2003, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 26 2003, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nuclear weapons are NICE compared to a serious, <i>full scale</i> chemical/biological attack. Nasty nasty stuff. Radiation burns and cancer from nukes are similar in nastyness to the effects of nerve agent/biological agents- but at least with nukes a good percent are vaporized and go quickly. We should be so lucky. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmmm. Except that with nuclear attack most of your infrastructure is also destroyed along with your population. In addition the long-term radiation effects of dirtier nukes last for decades, not hours or days like most chemical or biological weapons. In a chemical/bio attack little gets hurt except people, and it's soon over. People were getting cancer in Hiroshima wreckage for decades. The number of people vaporized is actually quite low - the number of people greatly sickened and dying over weeks and months and years is considerably greater, and more importantly, all the hospitals and other medical/logistical systems to help are also damaged or destroyed instantly as well. The strain on the infrastructure is countless times heavier after a nuclear attack. On the other hand, chemical weapons are quite ineffective and difficult to deploy in large quantities, and bio weapons are nearly impossible to keep alive long enough in high enough concentrations to cause any real effects. Hence why they are never seriously used - not because they are too terribly deadly, but because they are not terribly capable.
Can you tell that I was a Nuclear-Biological-Chemical school graduate in the USMC? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thats true, although some of the bio stuff can have nasty long term effects, and the chem stuff will do permanent damage.
I'm talking about full scale retaliation here- not one bomb on one city. Most of the deaths will be people who die near instantly when you plaster a city with multiple nukes.
While it is more difficult to deploy chem/bio weapons, they do have the potential to be equally devistating to a population if employed properly, especially a population not prepared. Setting up multiple, overlapping airburst nerve agent attacks on a city sized target using IRBM's can be done can it not?
You're right of course about nukes damaging infastructure as well. But that is not absolutely nessisary to ensure deterrence. Remember, all we're trying to do in this case is make the risks of attacking outweigh the benefits to fit into the MAD philosophy.
What do you think about the rest of my statement though Monse? Am I accurate in stating that the cost of the weapons are much smaller than the cost to properly defend an entire nation against them?
Just before I go into the main arguement, I'd say that the reason chemical and biological weapons weren't used in WWII was because they wouldn't give either side a clear advantage. Say Germany gasses London; well Britain gasses Munich. I would argue that they were not an effective detterance as though both sides had them, war occured anyway. However, one of the major factors behind MAD is intent: if a nation does not demonstrate that it clearly intends to use it's detterance weapons in the event of a conflict, the weapons are useless as a detterant. This is not to say though that bio and chem weapons can't be used as a detterance; far from it, as I will explain below. Simply that neither the Allies or the Axis demonstrated or even stated that in the event of war stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons would be used.
I accept your point that chemical and biological weapons can be used as detterance. To a lesser degree, they can function under a MAD doctrine, but they're generally not seen in the same light as nukes. Looking at your example, take Saddam's gassing of the Kurds back when he was in power. A terrible event, no question there, and the weapons used were undoubtably powerful. Yet the world didn't seem to care that much. It was only when Saddam invaded Kuwaiit that the world did anything, and they weren't going after Iraq because of WMD; no, it was because Saddam threatened the oil supply to the western world.
Now what if Saddam had used a nuke? What if he'd dropped the Bomb on those poor Kurds? This is, of course, only speculation, but I would imagine that the international response would have been huge.
Looking at chem and bio weapons, one thing stands out: not many places have them, and the places that do have them don't have them in huge amounts. They arn't traditionally used as detterance weapons. Now this is not to say they couldn't; if the US replaced every nuclear warhead in it's arsonal with a sarin or VX nerve gas shell, that would still constitute a massive detterance force which could strike at enemies of the US with little warning and devestating effect. But nations tend to like nukes for some reason. Nukes have, well the only real word is "status". "Look at me. I have nukes. Ph34r me". For some reason, nations don't get much respect when they say "Look at me. I have anthrax.".
In fact, I would argue that conventional weapons constitute a deterrance in sufficient quantities. Looking at the US for example, in truth the nation doesn't really need 25,000 nukes; the nation's sea, air and ground forces are easily the match of any world nation, and as such any invasion of the US that does not resort to WMDs is doomed to failure. Indeed, the US is so adept at projecting this power throughout the globe, be it via marine taskgroups, aircraft carrier fleets or allied bases, that military action against the US and it's allies is virtually unthinkable, given that the US has the power to strike anywhere it wants, with virtual impunity and with great force.
At the end of the day, I'm agreeing with you. Biological and chemical weapons can be used as a detterance force under the doctrine of MAD, it's just that most of the time they arn't employed in this fashion. If they were employed in this fashion then may whatever deities everyone believes in save us; the thought of biological weapons that could target specific races for example is too nightmarish to even consider. Of course, that won't stop someone making such a weapon.
And no hard feelings, I simply took your statement the wrong way. No apology is needed <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam's gassing of the Kurds back when he was in power. A terrible event, no question there, and the weapons used were undoubtably powerful. Yet the world didn't seem to care that much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but I'm not talking about a small scale isolated incident. If Kuwait could only pull something like that off, it wouldn't be that big a deterrent. I mean a major coordinated strikes on a large scale.
The thing is, while not many countries have chemical weapons, it's within the grasp of a well off third world country- while many very wealthy countries can't get nukes.
I agree that nuclear weapons demand more attention on a political scale. Nuking the kurds as opposed to gassing them would have sparked a much larger international outcry.
As to who can get them, I think you're right- in reality, whoever has them can have them. Which may be why we try so hard to stop countries _before_ they get them, because we can't do too much to them once they have them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As to who can get them, I think you're right- in reality, whoever has them can have them. Which may be why we try so hard to stop countries _before_ they get them, because we can't do too much to them once they have them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in reality, if you get them you've got them: not much anyone can do after that point. But, and here is where it get's tricky, do we stop all countries from developing nukes, or only some? Israel got itself some nukes a while back: should we have tried to stop them? Say Taiwan announced it was starting a nuclear program: should they be allowed to do it?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 26 2003, 11:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 26 2003, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 26 2003, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 26 2003, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nuclear weapons are NICE compared to a serious, <i>full scale</i> chemical/biological attack. Nasty nasty stuff. Radiation burns and cancer from nukes are similar in nastyness to the effects of nerve agent/biological agents- but at least with nukes a good percent are vaporized and go quickly. We should be so lucky. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmmm. Except that with nuclear attack most of your infrastructure is also destroyed along with your population. In addition the long-term radiation effects of dirtier nukes last for decades, not hours or days like most chemical or biological weapons. In a chemical/bio attack little gets hurt except people, and it's soon over. People were getting cancer in Hiroshima wreckage for decades. The number of people vaporized is actually quite low - the number of people greatly sickened and dying over weeks and months and years is considerably greater, and more importantly, all the hospitals and other medical/logistical systems to help are also damaged or destroyed instantly as well. The strain on the infrastructure is countless times heavier after a nuclear attack. On the other hand, chemical weapons are quite ineffective and difficult to deploy in large quantities, and bio weapons are nearly impossible to keep alive long enough in high enough concentrations to cause any real effects. Hence why they are never seriously used - not because they are too terribly deadly, but because they are not terribly capable.
Can you tell that I was a Nuclear-Biological-Chemical school graduate in the USMC? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not so much anymore. Good'ol U.S R&D have the neutron bomb. Vaporizing biological matter while leaving most infratrusture intact. I believe the program was cut because of obvious reasons however The People's Republic of China have a few in their arsenal
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 26 2003, 12:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 26 2003, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not so much anymore. Good'ol U.S R&D have the neutron bomb. Vaporizing biological matter while <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, we don't have any neutron bombs. China claims to have some (but have never proven it), but their total number of intercontinental thermonuclear weapons is only 44, which does not really constitute a deterrent except for first-strike. By that I mean, they could only use those weapons in a surprise attack, not an escalation of tensions, as the US could easily remove them with stealth strikes and the destruction of their handful of ancient SLBM submarines. They are not in the the MAD category of Russia, only in the 'jeez, don't tick 'em off, we might lose San Francisco' category.
So, neutron is not part of the argument in reality. What the heck were we talking about? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Personally? If I had a say? I think it depends on the reason the country desires nuclear weapons, and the status of their government. Is the government stable? Will it be stable in the foreseeable future? Is it capable of dealing with the responsibilities that come with ownership? Can it mantain and SECURE the stockpile? And by secure I mean from external threats (potential attacks on the stockpile), and internal threats (basic failsafes to ensure that one dude can't go nutzo and use them)
If you create a small stockpile, it's inherently vulnerable when we're talking about defense. It's more suitable for leverage than anything else, demanding economic aid and sabre rattling IMO.
If your government is currently unstable or looks like it will be in the near future, the country should also not be allowed to have nukes in my opinion.
North Korea is a good example of both of these- an unstable government, a desperate people, and a small stockpile that's vulnerable, not very useful for defense (as it runs the risk of being destroyed in a pre-emptive strike, so you're faced with a use it or lose it situation), so that leaves using it as leverage to possibly bully surrounding countries for economic assistance or to gain a superior position. So in this case, I don't think North Korea should be "allowed" to procure nuclear weapons, but it's not like we're capable of stopping them at this point.
Those are just my opinions though, I can't say that's the best way to determine who and who shouldn't have them.
Just as Monse said, china's stockpile that is capable of reaching the major threats is so small that it runs the risk of being destroyed in a first strike- while no one plans to strike them first, it's a possibility, and therefore they may consider using it pre-emptively. While it's self defense in THEIR eyes, the fact is they've used them first and therefore it wasn't in retaliation. In such cases it can destablize situations, not act as a stabilizing insurance from invasion.
And, there is one way to reduce nuclear tensions in my mind: missile defense systems sold to everyone. They don't have much potential to reduce a full-scale US or Russian attack with thousands of warheads, but they're great for the so-called 'rogue nation scenario' attacks of a handful of weapons. If the US finalizes some of the missile and air defense systems under research right now, you could simply sell them like hotcakes to India, Pakistan, South Koreas, etc. and take all the small nuke players out of the fight. Making ICBM/SLBM/air-delivered nukes useless in small numbers either causes a country to create a LOT more (impossible for pretty much all nations except America at this point) or get rid of them as a waste of time and money.
edit: forgot to give my China Nuke sources - <a href='http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 26 2003, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 26 2003, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And, there is one way to reduce nuclear tensions in my mind: missile defense systems sold to everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hell, I can't believe how I forgot all about defense systems. That actually sounds like a good plan at this point. I wonder how much one would cost, because if I have understood correctly, a working missile defense system requires satellites, multiple long range radars and all kinds of command centers etc. Maybe they'll get cheaper over time, though that wont do much good for me, as there is no defense system that could protect us from all Russian nukes. Remembering that during cold war their plan was to rename Finland in to smoking-crater so US troops couldn't attack through north. Heh, again I'm going offtopic but that's my specialty <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wonder how much one would cost, because if I have understood correctly, a working missile defense system requires satellites, multiple long range radars and all kinds of command centers etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Information so that we can all form actual opinions on the matter:
<a href='http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink.html' target='_blank'>http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/...l/bmdolink.html</a> - US Department responsible for the research <a href='http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/</a> - FAS info <a href='http://people.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense1.htm' target='_blank'>http://people.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense1.htm</a> - Star Wars for Dummies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Dec 26 2003, 11:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Dec 26 2003, 11:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 26 2003, 12:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 26 2003, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not so much anymore. Good'ol U.S R&D have the neutron bomb. Vaporizing biological matter while <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, we don't have any neutron bombs. China claims to have some (but have never proven it), but their total number of intercontinental thermonuclear weapons is only 44, which does not really constitute a deterrent except for first-strike. By that I mean, they could only use those weapons in a surprise attack, not an escalation of tensions, as the US could easily remove them with stealth strikes and the destruction of their handful of ancient SLBM submarines. They are not in the the MAD category of Russia, only in the 'jeez, don't tick 'em off, we might lose San Francisco' category.
So, neutron is not part of the argument in reality. What the heck were we talking about? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought it fit because its not a MASS DESTRUCTION weapon (except loss of all life in the blast radius)
Comments
So why USA has nukes if not to keep the possible invading country afraid? For use? Or do you suggest that Israel/France has nukes for attack, instead of defence? Many countries use MAD as a basis of a defence policy. Or if not MAD, at least ADA, Assured Destruction of Attacker.
And could you sum up your thoughts in this thread? Should Denmark be able to get nukes? What about Vietnam? Who is to decide? The strongest?
I said we shouldn't give everyone nukes <b>relying solely on the fact that a nuclear exhange hasn't occured yet.</b> and assume that will mean peace via. MAD.
Do you <i>honestly</i> believe that if everyone has nukes there will be no more war because of MAD? Based just on the fact that we haven't had an exchange so far?
I said we shouldn't give everyone nukes <b>relying solely on the fact that a nuclear exhange hasn't occured yet.</b> and assume that will mean peace via. MAD.
Do you <i>honestly</i> believe that if everyone has nukes there will be no more war because of MAD? Based just on the fact that we haven't had an exchange yet? [/QUOTE]
I don't want to fight with you. If you kindly read the whole thread...
[QUOTE=Hübel-MonsE]Your plan to hand out nukes is still dumb, and I mean that as a friend [/QUOTE]
My answer: Fair enough How about we get rid of all the nukes except we give few to the worlds space agencies in case your big-space-rock-hits-our-earth-rock scenario takes place?
I admitted giving nukes everyone wasn't the brightest idea.
Edit: Damn, I can't get these quotes to work. I. Hate. This. Board. Or this board hates me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My answer: Fair enough How about we get rid of all the nukes except we give few to the worlds space agencies in case your big-space-rock-hits-our-earth-rock scenario takes place?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not a bad idea actually. But still, pie in the sky - WMD's will never go away. Now we can only work on non-proliferation and limited disarmament (like South Africa, who had israeli-assisted nukes, but got rid of them post-apartheid). The major players will never give them up though, and as the world's oil supplies dwindle nuclear power will be a more and more attractive option to countries. With nuclear power comes nuclear weapons, very often...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well....apart from MAD, what choice do we have? Nations with nukes arn't going to give them up. This prompts other nations without nukes to try and develop their own, because one big advantage of being a nuclear power is that you tend not to be invaded. You can't defend your nations against nukes. Even this so-called missile shield only provides a percentage chance of interpecting incomming warheads, plus you're faced with the problem of missile submarines just off your coastline launching nukes that hit their targets in less than a minute, negating much of the proposed "shield".
So you have nukes, and your neighbour/rival has nukes as well. You can either:
a) Convince him to dismantle his nukes, whilst promising to dismantle yours. This is a long shot at best.
b) Invade him and take his nukes away. Tricky, seeing as when you invade he will very probably use his nukes to stop you, unless he is Saddam and doesn't actually have any.
c) Rely on MAD to prevent war from breaking out between your two countries.
It's crazy, but c) does offer you the best chance. MAD is around because it's pretty much the only option when two nations have nukes. Now yes, we say it works because it hasn't failed yet. But we really don't have much of a choice.
Now as to which nations should have WMDs? I believe that no nation should have biological or chemical weapons: the boundaries with those particular weapons are too hazy and their potential to be manufactured easily is too high. When it comes to nukes however, I tend to follow the same logic that the world seems to have followed: if you get nukes, you're allowed to have them. Frankly, if you get nukes, who is going to take them away? The US? They havn't done it yet. The UN? Yeah right. Every nation that has aquired nukes has not had them taken away from them. The only nuclear power I can think of who no longer has nukes is South Africa, and they dismantled them of their own accord. Libya and Iran have turned over their programs, but they didn't have nukes yet.
Why not? Bio and chem weapons are a "poor mans nuke". They provide the MAD you hold so dearly, at a fraction of the cost.
My only real beef is with _small_ stockpiles of nuclear weapons in countries that are unstable. It's a dangerous combination, and MAD may fail there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bio and chem weapons don't represent the same level of power as nukes. Certainly they're strong (and given advances in genetics and biology, selective bio-weapons may become the nukes of tommorow), but as it stands, nukes represent such a massive scaling up of conflict. They're instant-destruction weapons with the ability to completely wipe out an entire country's population in a matter of minutes. But the biggest factor in their power is that fact that there is no defense against them. You can't immunise your population, nor can you issue them gas-masks or chem-suits. You have a few minutes to try and herd a few thousand people into shelters that may or may not work and then your whole country is gone. That's what makes them such a potent deterrance.
"You hold so dearly". Oh that's cute. I like the way you assumed that I just love the idea of 60,000 odd nuclear weapons aimed directly at my family and friends. I never said I liked it, or that I "held it dear". I simply said that we don't have an alternative right now. Why don't you actually suggest an alternative instead of trying to get a cheap shot at me?
And I'm sorry if you took that as a cheap shot- it wasn't ment to be.
But I still think chem/bio weapons are plenty effective as a deterrent for the whole MAD thing. I doubt saddam would have invaded kuwait if kuwait had the ability to plaster baghdad, tikrit, and other major population centers with chem/bio weapons.
Lets set up an example. Say it's 1991 and Saddam Hussein wants kuwait, but kuwait has chemical/biological weapons. Now, saddam has them too. Regardless, if he REALLY badly wants kuwait, he's got three options.
a) Invade kuwait, preparing the population for any retalitory strike.
b) Invade kuwait, screw preparing the population. It's too much money to be worth it.
c) Don't invade, the risks are too great since Kuwait has chemical/biological weapons.
Alrighty, so lets discuss the options in detail. Say saddam goes with option a- he feels that he can protect his people (as you said, issue them gas masks and chem suits) and strike kuwait with impunity. Even if they attack, they can shrug it off!
But we're not talking WWI here. This is a full scale retaliatory strike- Gas masks alone won't cut it. We're not talking puny tokyo subway attacks, or anthrax letter attacks either. We're talking about weapons grade nerve agent, airbursted in efficient concentrations over major and minor population centers. You need full chem suits, MOPP 4 stuff, to even stand a _chance_. So he buys chemical suits for all his people. Millions of people, hundreds of millions of dollars. Then he trains the citizens how to use them. Hundreds million more dollars. Then he sets up a network capable of evacuating and decontaminating people within 48 hours from the initial strike. (You can't stay in those MOPP suits for very long). Thats even more hundreds of millions of dollars more. If they get plastered with weapons grade biological weapons as well, he's got to set up aid stations and not only decontaminate the population, but also provide treatment for the widespread illness and plan for the massive loss of crops and livestock. Hundreds of millions more. Then you prepare for follow up strikes, which means you have to go through the decon process all over again. This isn't even considering the long term medical costs.
So if kuwait spends a hundred million on chemical weapons and delivery systems, and Iraq wants to be able to protect its citizens, they must spend probably <b>billions</b> at this point to prepare. Even then the death toll would be in the millions most likely in the initial attack and years following.
Sounds pretty damn cost effective to me.
Course, I wouldn't put it past saddam to go with option b, only giving some of his people protection (his supporters and high level officials) and saying screw the rest. If his people suffer and die, then it's kuwaits fault of course! Good PR, and he stays in power while anyone who is not a loyalist is considered an "acceptable loss".
But lets give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he chooses option c- no invasion. That's the only sure way to keep his people safe, if he's looking out for his best interest. I honestly don't think saddam would have invaded if kuwait had the capability to retaliate on a major scale with these kinds of weapons. And the scary thing is they're the _poor_ mans option. While still expensive, it's cheaper and easier than a nuclear program.
All three types (nuclear, biological, chemical) are categorized as weapons of mass destruction, and all three can work as a deterrent under the "MAD" philosophy.
Nuclear weapons are NICE compared to a serious, <i>full scale</i> chemical/biological attack. Nasty nasty stuff. Radiation burns and cancer from nukes are similar in nastyness to the effects of nerve agent/biological agents- but at least with nukes a good percent are vaporized and go quickly. We should be so lucky.
Hmmm. Except that with nuclear attack most of your infrastructure is also destroyed along with your population. In addition the long-term radiation effects of dirtier nukes last for decades, not hours or days like most chemical or biological weapons. In a chemical/bio attack little gets hurt except people, and it's soon over. People were getting cancer in Hiroshima wreckage for decades. The number of people vaporized is actually quite low - the number of people greatly sickened and dying over weeks and months and years is considerably greater, and more importantly, all the hospitals and other medical/logistical systems to help are also damaged or destroyed instantly as well. The strain on the infrastructure is countless times heavier after a nuclear attack. On the other hand, chemical weapons are quite ineffective and difficult to deploy in large quantities, and bio weapons are nearly impossible to keep alive long enough in high enough concentrations to cause any real effects. Hence why they are never seriously used - not because they are too terribly deadly, but because they are not terribly capable.
Can you tell that I was a Nuclear-Biological-Chemical school graduate in the USMC? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm talking about full scale retaliation here- not one bomb on one city. Most of the deaths will be people who die near instantly when you plaster a city with multiple nukes.
While it is more difficult to deploy chem/bio weapons, they do have the potential to be equally devistating to a population if employed properly, especially a population not prepared. Setting up multiple, overlapping airburst nerve agent attacks on a city sized target using IRBM's can be done can it not?
You're right of course about nukes damaging infastructure as well. But that is not absolutely nessisary to ensure deterrence. Remember, all we're trying to do in this case is make the risks of attacking outweigh the benefits to fit into the MAD philosophy.
What do you think about the rest of my statement though Monse? Am I accurate in stating that the cost of the weapons are much smaller than the cost to properly defend an entire nation against them?
I accept your point that chemical and biological weapons can be used as detterance. To a lesser degree, they can function under a MAD doctrine, but they're generally not seen in the same light as nukes. Looking at your example, take Saddam's gassing of the Kurds back when he was in power. A terrible event, no question there, and the weapons used were undoubtably powerful. Yet the world didn't seem to care that much. It was only when Saddam invaded Kuwaiit that the world did anything, and they weren't going after Iraq because of WMD; no, it was because Saddam threatened the oil supply to the western world.
Now what if Saddam had used a nuke? What if he'd dropped the Bomb on those poor Kurds? This is, of course, only speculation, but I would imagine that the international response would have been huge.
Looking at chem and bio weapons, one thing stands out: not many places have them, and the places that do have them don't have them in huge amounts. They arn't traditionally used as detterance weapons. Now this is not to say they couldn't; if the US replaced every nuclear warhead in it's arsonal with a sarin or VX nerve gas shell, that would still constitute a massive detterance force which could strike at enemies of the US with little warning and devestating effect. But nations tend to like nukes for some reason. Nukes have, well the only real word is "status". "Look at me. I have nukes. Ph34r me". For some reason, nations don't get much respect when they say "Look at me. I have anthrax.".
In fact, I would argue that conventional weapons constitute a deterrance in sufficient quantities. Looking at the US for example, in truth the nation doesn't really need 25,000 nukes; the nation's sea, air and ground forces are easily the match of any world nation, and as such any invasion of the US that does not resort to WMDs is doomed to failure. Indeed, the US is so adept at projecting this power throughout the globe, be it via marine taskgroups, aircraft carrier fleets or allied bases, that military action against the US and it's allies is virtually unthinkable, given that the US has the power to strike anywhere it wants, with virtual impunity and with great force.
At the end of the day, I'm agreeing with you. Biological and chemical weapons can be used as a detterance force under the doctrine of MAD, it's just that most of the time they arn't employed in this fashion. If they were employed in this fashion then may whatever deities everyone believes in save us; the thought of biological weapons that could target specific races for example is too nightmarish to even consider. Of course, that won't stop someone making such a weapon.
And no hard feelings, I simply took your statement the wrong way. No apology is needed <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
True, but I'm not talking about a small scale isolated incident. If Kuwait could only pull something like that off, it wouldn't be that big a deterrent. I mean a major coordinated strikes on a large scale.
The thing is, while not many countries have chemical weapons, it's within the grasp of a well off third world country- while many very wealthy countries can't get nukes.
I agree that nuclear weapons demand more attention on a political scale. Nuking the kurds as opposed to gassing them would have sparked a much larger international outcry.
As to who can get them, I think you're right- in reality, whoever has them can have them. Which may be why we try so hard to stop countries _before_ they get them, because we can't do too much to them once they have them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, in reality, if you get them you've got them: not much anyone can do after that point. But, and here is where it get's tricky, do we stop all countries from developing nukes, or only some? Israel got itself some nukes a while back: should we have tried to stop them? Say Taiwan announced it was starting a nuclear program: should they be allowed to do it?
Hmmm. Except that with nuclear attack most of your infrastructure is also destroyed along with your population. In addition the long-term radiation effects of dirtier nukes last for decades, not hours or days like most chemical or biological weapons. In a chemical/bio attack little gets hurt except people, and it's soon over. People were getting cancer in Hiroshima wreckage for decades. The number of people vaporized is actually quite low - the number of people greatly sickened and dying over weeks and months and years is considerably greater, and more importantly, all the hospitals and other medical/logistical systems to help are also damaged or destroyed instantly as well. The strain on the infrastructure is countless times heavier after a nuclear attack. On the other hand, chemical weapons are quite ineffective and difficult to deploy in large quantities, and bio weapons are nearly impossible to keep alive long enough in high enough concentrations to cause any real effects. Hence why they are never seriously used - not because they are too terribly deadly, but because they are not terribly capable.
Can you tell that I was a Nuclear-Biological-Chemical school graduate in the USMC? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so much anymore. Good'ol U.S R&D have the neutron bomb. Vaporizing biological matter while leaving most infratrusture intact. I believe the program was cut because of obvious reasons however The People's Republic of China have a few in their arsenal
Nope, we don't have any neutron bombs. China claims to have some (but have never proven it), but their total number of intercontinental thermonuclear weapons is only 44, which does not really constitute a deterrent except for first-strike. By that I mean, they could only use those weapons in a surprise attack, not an escalation of tensions, as the US could easily remove them with stealth strikes and the destruction of their handful of ancient SLBM submarines. They are not in the the MAD category of Russia, only in the 'jeez, don't tick 'em off, we might lose San Francisco' category.
So, neutron is not part of the argument in reality. What the heck were we talking about? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you create a small stockpile, it's inherently vulnerable when we're talking about defense. It's more suitable for leverage than anything else, demanding economic aid and sabre rattling IMO.
If your government is currently unstable or looks like it will be in the near future, the country should also not be allowed to have nukes in my opinion.
North Korea is a good example of both of these- an unstable government, a desperate people, and a small stockpile that's vulnerable, not very useful for defense (as it runs the risk of being destroyed in a pre-emptive strike, so you're faced with a use it or lose it situation), so that leaves using it as leverage to possibly bully surrounding countries for economic assistance or to gain a superior position. So in this case, I don't think North Korea should be "allowed" to procure nuclear weapons, but it's not like we're capable of stopping them at this point.
Those are just my opinions though, I can't say that's the best way to determine who and who shouldn't have them.
Just as Monse said, china's stockpile that is capable of reaching the major threats is so small that it runs the risk of being destroyed in a first strike- while no one plans to strike them first, it's a possibility, and therefore they may consider using it pre-emptively. While it's self defense in THEIR eyes, the fact is they've used them first and therefore it wasn't in retaliation. In such cases it can destablize situations, not act as a stabilizing insurance from invasion.
edit: forgot to give my China Nuke sources - <a href='http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html</a>
Hell, I can't believe how I forgot all about defense systems. That actually sounds like a good plan at this point. I wonder how much one would cost, because if I have understood correctly, a working missile defense system requires satellites, multiple long range radars and all kinds of command centers etc. Maybe they'll get cheaper over time, though that wont do much good for me, as there is no defense system that could protect us from all Russian nukes. Remembering that during cold war their plan was to rename Finland in to smoking-crater so US troops couldn't attack through north. Heh, again I'm going offtopic but that's my specialty <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Indeed. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wonder how much one would cost, because if I have understood correctly, a working missile defense system requires satellites, multiple long range radars and all kinds of command centers etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Information so that we can all form actual opinions on the matter:
<a href='http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink.html' target='_blank'>http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/...l/bmdolink.html</a> - US Department responsible for the research
<a href='http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/</a> - FAS info
<a href='http://people.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense1.htm' target='_blank'>http://people.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense1.htm</a> - Star Wars for Dummies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nope, we don't have any neutron bombs. China claims to have some (but have never proven it), but their total number of intercontinental thermonuclear weapons is only 44, which does not really constitute a deterrent except for first-strike. By that I mean, they could only use those weapons in a surprise attack, not an escalation of tensions, as the US could easily remove them with stealth strikes and the destruction of their handful of ancient SLBM submarines. They are not in the the MAD category of Russia, only in the 'jeez, don't tick 'em off, we might lose San Francisco' category.
So, neutron is not part of the argument in reality. What the heck were we talking about? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought it fit because its not a MASS DESTRUCTION weapon (except loss of all life in the blast radius)