- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Strategic value of nuclear bombs
Posted on 3/7/22 at 8:58 am
Posted on 3/7/22 at 8:58 am
With modern technology providing the ability for pinpoint accuracy, is there even a good reason to use a nuclear bomb? Seems like there is really no strategic value in them anymore as they cause way too much collateral damage.
18
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:00 am to Dandaman
The prospect of total annihilation can still serve as an effective deterrent.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:00 am to Dandaman
Keeping them around tends to deter nuclear attack.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:05 am to Dandaman
"Way too much...damage" is kinda the point. It provides an incentive (existential threat) for states to limit escalation, lest they catch hell.
Also...not mutually exclusive. Precision nuclear weapons are a thing.
Also...not mutually exclusive. Precision nuclear weapons are a thing.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:06 am to Dandaman
quote:
Seems like there is really no strategic value in them anymore
Simply having them.
You notice that countries with a nuclear arsenal don’t get invaded. It’s why the US and NATO is hesitant to get directly involved with Russia.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:09 am to Tyga Woods
quote:
You notice that countries with a nuclear arsenal don’t get invaded.
..and notably, Ukraine gave up the Soviet ones it had.
Rookie mistake.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:13 am to Dandaman
MAD works
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:14 am to Dandaman
I would be shocked if the US hasn’t developed some way to completely block them.
We always have military tech that is nearly incomprehensible to the normal person at the time. Imagine trying to explain the internet to someone in the 1930s or whenever Al Gore invented it
We always have military tech that is nearly incomprehensible to the normal person at the time. Imagine trying to explain the internet to someone in the 1930s or whenever Al Gore invented it
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:23 am to Dandaman
I would argue that as of 3/7/22 that the invention of nuclear weapons has been a good thing. They brought a quicker end to WWII and are a very strong deterrent for the big boys engaging in war with each other.
Now there have been close calls (Cuban Missile Crisis, for example) and things may change drastically tomorrow or sometime in the future if a Greg Stillson comes to power in a nuclear state - but from the Manhattan Project to today I believe their existence has been positive.
Now there have been close calls (Cuban Missile Crisis, for example) and things may change drastically tomorrow or sometime in the future if a Greg Stillson comes to power in a nuclear state - but from the Manhattan Project to today I believe their existence has been positive.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:33 am to Dandaman
Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History - Destroyer of Worlds
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:36 am to Dandaman
quote:
Seems like there is really no strategic value in them
I think you meant to say "no tactical value" and you would still be wrong.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:40 am to Dandaman
I think we are witnessing in real time how big of a deterrent they really are.
If Ukraine still had nukes, Russia wouldn't be there. Conversely, Russia does have nukes and is the only reason that NATO or some other military power hasn't stepped in in defense of Ukraine and beat the Russians back behind their borders.
If Ukraine still had nukes, Russia wouldn't be there. Conversely, Russia does have nukes and is the only reason that NATO or some other military power hasn't stepped in in defense of Ukraine and beat the Russians back behind their borders.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:43 am to Dandaman
Russia / Ukraine is a good example of their importance.
Libya is also an example. In the 90s, Gaddafi agreed to get rid of the nuclear weapons Libya had. 20 years later, the US/West get him overthrown from power and he ends up assassinated/killed. With Nukes, he'd have never lost power.
Libya is also an example. In the 90s, Gaddafi agreed to get rid of the nuclear weapons Libya had. 20 years later, the US/West get him overthrown from power and he ends up assassinated/killed. With Nukes, he'd have never lost power.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:49 am to Dandaman
It’s the totality of its destructive power that makes it such a huge deterrent. On top certain annihilation in a given area, the area will be uninhabitable for some time. It’s the only thing that nations with lesser military capabilities can hang there hat on.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:55 am to Dandaman
quote:
Strategic value of nuclear bombs
About
Tree
Fiddy
Posted on 3/7/22 at 9:56 am to Dandaman
They are counterproductive to the human experience and human existence. "If I can't have it my way, I'll just blow everything up".
It's quite ridiculous that we as humans believe in Nukes---most wars are fought for "progress" for a vision a person has--right or wrong. If you win the war, your vision gets to plays out. That same person also believes that "If you lose, I'll just frick everyone with nukes" doesn't really jive with the overall engagement from the start.
It's the removal of gentlemen-ship and decorum from battle. Use to be you fight for something and if you win you get it--shake the other hand and move on. Now if you have a fistfight, and the other person loses, well now they just shoot you and your entire family up.
It's quite ridiculous that we as humans believe in Nukes---most wars are fought for "progress" for a vision a person has--right or wrong. If you win the war, your vision gets to plays out. That same person also believes that "If you lose, I'll just frick everyone with nukes" doesn't really jive with the overall engagement from the start.
It's the removal of gentlemen-ship and decorum from battle. Use to be you fight for something and if you win you get it--shake the other hand and move on. Now if you have a fistfight, and the other person loses, well now they just shoot you and your entire family up.
This post was edited on 3/7/22 at 10:01 am
Posted on 3/7/22 at 10:01 am to Dandaman
quote:
With modern technology providing the ability for pinpoint accuracy, is there even a good reason to use a nuclear bomb? Seems like there is really no strategic value in them anymore as they cause way too much collateral damage.
You wonder why we do not have a direct engagement with Russia? In this week they have proven that their forces are incompetent, they are not well trained, their equipment is dogshit, and they are not precise nor tactical in their approach. You know why we don't go in and crush their military? Nukes. It is a deterrent and for good reason. Putin knows this ,and we know this if you take away Nukes our military crushes theirs. The fear of a single Nuclear Strike is enough to stop a Superior Force in engaging in direct confrontation with another force.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 10:07 am to Globetrotter747
quote:Yeah it's always going to be positive until the point it goes very, very negative.
from the Manhattan Project to today I believe their existence has been positive.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 10:12 am to Dandaman
quote:
With modern technology providing the ability for pinpoint accuracy, is there even a good reason to use a nuclear bomb? Seems like there is really no strategic value in them anymore as they cause way too much collateral damage.
The reason you have nukes in your arsenal isn’t to use them but to keep the other guy from using them on you silly. It’s purely deterrence for those who might think to use theirs on you preemptively. Ridding yourselves of them only serves your enemies, not your own safety and security.
I thought we went over this already. Apparently some don’t learn, or weren’t here for the lessons.
Posted on 3/7/22 at 10:52 am to Korkstand
quote:
Yeah it's always going to be positive until the point it goes very, very negative
Hopefully that point will never come.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News