Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the role of nuclear arsenals ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is the role of nuclear arsenals ?

    In 2009, what is the real role of a nuclear arsenals and in what situations are major powers willing to use them ?
    Last edited by Le_Scientifique; 15 Jan 09,, 11:05.

  • #2
    I don't think most of the major powers will use their nukes ever.... (thanks to their democracy)
    It can only be used undemocratic states...

    But that does not mean nuclear arsenal is useless in 2009....

    If Iraq had nukes in reality,America would never had attacked Iraq..
    Pakistan is alive because they have weapons of peace ....
    Last edited by Xneon; 15 Jan 09,, 15:57.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Xneon View Post
      I don't think most of the major powers will use their nukes ever.... (thanks to their democracy)
      It can only be used undemocratic states...

      But that does not mean nuclear arsenal is useless in 2009....

      If Iraq had nukes in reality,America would never had attacked Iraq..
      Pakistan is alive because they have weapons of peace ....
      If Iraq had nuclear weapons, Bush probably would have won a 3rd term.

      Pakistan is alive because no one wants to invade that dysfunctional country. A couple of low yield A-bombs with limited means of delivery won't stop someone from invading if they really wanted to.

      Back to the topic. Nukes are necessary for some states. Russia keeps a huge nuclear arsenal because it's integral with their defense doctrine. It's conventional forces are slow to modernize so nukes are there as a deterant. And a very serious deterant they are.
      Last edited by gunnut; 15 Jan 09,, 20:31.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Xneon View Post
        I don't think most of the major powers will use their nukes ever.... (thanks to their democracy)
        It can only be used undemocratic states...

        But that does not mean nuclear arsenal is useless in 2009....

        If Iraq had nukes in reality,America would never had attacked Iraq..
        Pakistan is alive because they have weapons of peace ....
        On the contrary, Pakistan's nukes are alive because the US still has some hope of bringing that derailed country to normalcy and to a democratic fold. The day the US gets fed up and disillusioned their would be no Pakistani nukes.
        sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Le_Scientifique View Post
          In 2009, what is the real role of a nuclear arsenals and in what situations are major powers willing to use them ?
          As a deterrent from attacks from nuclear armed countries .In the event of attack from nuclear weapons , returned they shall be .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tankie View Post
            As a deterrent from attacks from nuclear armed countries .In the event of attack from nuclear weapons , returned they shall be .
            If nuclear weapons are to be used only if they are themselves attacked by nuclear weapons, in that perspective it's virtually impossible to have any nuclear weapons to be used ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
              On the contrary, Pakistan's nukes are alive because the US still has some hope of bringing that derailed country to normalcy and to a democratic fold. The day the US gets fed up and disillusioned their would be no Pakistani nukes.
              Does americans perfectly knows about Pakistanis arsenals ? Informations about real nuclear capacity of Pakistan are particularly fragmented and differ greatly from sources to sources.

              Comment


              • #8
                If you are talking about their physical location, probably the Chinese engineers would know better. One however can not rule out American knowledge considering the fact that they provided both money and technology for the Pakistani Strategic Nuclear C&C and safety.

                When I say there won't be Pakistani nukes, I mean a situation that this thread ennumerated, "Pakistani Nukes being useda against any other country/Pakistani Nukes getting our the PA's hand and falling into the hands of Taliban/AQaida. In such a situation the US would wait for securing them, they will probably take out all of them with a premptive strike. In nut shell, Pakistan is riding a tiger that has a very hard errection and the PA/GoP don't know what to do.
                Last edited by Deltacamelately; 17 Jan 09,, 08:25.
                sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Le_Scientifique View Post
                  If nuclear weapons are to be used only if they are themselves attacked by nuclear weapons, in that perspective it's virtually impossible to have any nuclear weapons to be used ?
                  Right, thats why we never had a WW III. The nukes have prevented a conventional war between nuke states as it could have gotten out of control. For the same reason Pakistan did not overtly attack India but chose Kargil like operation and for that matter India did not expand the war after Pakistan raised the nuclear bogey.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Yusuf View Post
                    The nukes have prevented a conventional war between nuke states as it could have gotten out of control.
                    No, it didn't.

                    Sino-Soviet
                    American Vietnam War (The PRC sent 300,000 troops, mostly engineers and air defence and have engaged American forces).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Yusuf View Post
                      Right, thats why we never had a WW III. The nukes have prevented a conventional war between nuke states as it could have gotten out of control. For the same reason Pakistan did not overtly attack India but chose Kargil like operation and for that matter India did not expand the war after Pakistan raised the nuclear bogey.
                      OOE is right there is an escalation ladder of tensions that define conflicts before a state reaches a nuclear threshold. Low-level and even conventional conflicts can be fought between two nuclear armed states without it reaching nuclear threshold. Why were US troops stationed in Europe during the Cold War?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Le_Scientifique View Post
                        In 2009, what is the real role of a nuclear arsenals and in what situations are major powers willing to use them ?
                        There is also a prestige factor in having nuclear weapons that cannot be overlooked. Very few states have nukes, and those that do usually get a lot of attention.

                        This article was written by Kenneth Waltz many years ago, during the Cold War, still he makes some points about the utility of nuclear weapons that could be relevant today:

                        http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm

                        Also a good article to read is 'Back to the Future' by John Mearsheimer about the possibility of giving Germany nuclear weapons, written in 1991.
                        Last edited by Herodotus; 17 Jan 09,, 20:30.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Le_Scientifique View Post
                          Does americans perfectly knows about Pakistanis arsenals ? Informations about real nuclear capacity of Pakistan are particularly fragmented and differ greatly from sources to sources.

                          I imagine most US knowledge about Pakistan's nuclear program is highly classified, and anyone here who has accurate information would not admit it or tell what they know. At least I hope they wouldn't. All I can say as someone who use to be in the Intel business (more than ten years ago) is that the possibility exist that the US knows a lot more than what is publicly available.
                          Last edited by Johnny W; 27 Jan 09,, 20:33.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            No, it didn't.

                            Sino-Soviet
                            American Vietnam War (The PRC sent 300,000 troops, mostly engineers and air defence and have engaged American forces).
                            However, wouldn't you agree that most nuclear states fight each other indirectly, irespective of the numbers involved.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Z,

                              I am not sure what you're getting at. Americans and the Chinese were shooting at each other as did the Chinese and the Soviets when all of them had the nuke.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X