Has the Nuke gone out of fashion?

[1947]

6 decades ago america exploded the worlds first nuke in a race against time and germans they achieved what is and has been the most powerful weapon in recorded human history
nations have risen to the challenges of developing their own nuclear devices most have excelled in achieving it only 7 nations have acknowledged their possession of it only 5 of the 7 claim their legitimacy by law of the NPT
but has the beloved weapon of choice for deterrence gone out of fashion it has been used only twice in japan numerous threats have been made to use it against various nations they cost a hell of a lot to manufacture and twice as much to maintain.
it has become more of an insurance policy against invasion
but do u think that the world should cut down on the nukes its has further more given that there have been vast advance in other areas of warfare to counter the destruction of nukes
its been used twice against japan
after the its never been used
is not being used now and is very unlikely it will be used in the future

[1947]

has it?

[Officer of Engineers]

Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103

[1947]

Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103

my question is u keep a few nukes but get rid of the rest given that u might never use it and it cost a hell of a lot to maintain and also given that should you be involved in a conflict with another state there's more or a chance that u will use conventional weapons rather than going straight for the nuke

[Officer of Engineers]

You keep the nukes to make the sure the bad guy don't resort to WMDs. It was made in no uncertain terms that had Saddam used chems, we would've nuked him.

And when dumb Chinese school principals who are p!ssed off at being passed over for promotions says that China should prepare for nuclear war against the US, you make sure that China knows that it will lose and lose badly while the US would hardly feel it.

[kuku]

If this question is related to this thread please answer? although i think this is just another if& but exercise.

Without nuclear weapons how long would the cold war have stayed cold?
or
Did the nuclear weapons in some way contributed towards stopping an all out third world war?

[bolo121]

Kuku nice question, thats something I've wondered about as well.
What would the Soviet Union have done without all those pesky icbms to worry about?
Especially in the 70s with the US in bad moral case after Vietnam and with Soviet equipment at par to US and greatly outnumbering them, the temptation would have been immense.

[Dreadnought]

IMO If your going to use a nuke then chances are you dont want anything of the lands after the impact shows itself. I doubt we will ever use a nuclear explosion in a military sense again. Why?

1) Land ,Oil,Water,Food and Resources are such a commodity today that if you risked going to war over such then what would be viable of these things after a few nuclear explosions contaminate a majority of it pending the magnitude of the blast.

2) Threatening nuclear war basically stops all in their tracks and gets their attention rather quickly. Sooner of later after the explosion the fall out will travel somewhat making even more lands,water sources etc that more undesireable to the victor. Plus you get you countries name splashed across every paper in the known world. And since you are the victor now every country out there that is left unscathed will be focusing on you and your people.

3) Lets not forget disease. Dead rotting corpses of humans, animals, birds and even fish and the like now litter the ground/sea and all who feed off of it are now infected as well. Basically resetting the foodchain. Of which chances are the humans wont survive.

[physicsmonk]

Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103

OoE Sir,I read the three articles. I am quoting from them in order to ask a question.
This one is from
Nuclear Warfare 101

For another example, note how the presence of nuclear weapons restricted and limited the tactical and operational options available to both sides in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In effect neither side could push the war to a final conclusion because to do so would bring down nuclear attack on the heads of the "winners". Here, Israel's nuclear arsenal was limiting the conflict before it even started. Egypt and Syria couldn't destroy the country - all they could do was to chew up enough of the Israeli armed forces and put themselves in the correct strategic position to dictate a peace agreement on much more favorable terms than would be the case. But, the Israeli nuclear arsenal also limited the conflict in another way. Because they were a nuclear power they were fair game; if they pushed the Egyptians too hard, they would demand Soviet assistance and who knew where that would lead?

This one is from
Nuclear Warfare 103

A third preconception we have to get rid of is that there is such a thing as a limited nuclear exchange or a flexible response. There isn't now, never has been and never will be. The reasons why are primarily a C4I set of consideration but the inviolable rule is this "One Flies, They All Fly". Any exchange, no matter how limited, will escalate out of control until both participants have used all their devices

.

Sir,
I want to Know how would deterrence play out in case of a rogue nuclear attack(God forbid)?Will it lead to complete global thermo nuclear warfare?
The reason I am asking this is because bolded part assumes parties are identifiable and responsibility can be assigned.

You may say we can identify the reactor from which the material came and decide to punish the nation where it is located. This is where first quotation becomes important as I see.Would retribution involve guilt by association?

Let me give an example.God forbid if loons from NoKo or jihadis are able to smuggle and detonate a device in Europe,would China be held responsible for it.I know they supplied blue prints before signing NPT as you say,but would such rationality prevail in aftermath?

[physicsmonk]

Oh Sir, please dont take it as an Indian trying to bash China.I might not be great fan of the regime but this is one genuine query that I have after reading the articles

[Officer of Engineers]

Without nuclear weapons how long would the cold war have stayed cold?
or
Did the nuclear weapons in some way contributed towards stopping an all out third world war?

All I can say is that we were lucky. We deliberately came to the brink on no less than 3 occasions and I mean we were staring eye to eye with weapons co_cked and fingers on the trigger. More sensible minds had always drew us back but I remembered those occasions that it would not have taken much to start seeing mushroom clouds on the horizon.

Somebody somewhere decided that we were not that crazy ... and God bless that person.

[Officer of Engineers]

Let me give an example.God forbid if loons from NoKo or jihadis are able to smuggle and detonate a device in Europe,would China be held responsible for it.I know they supplied blue prints before signing NPT as you say,but would such rationality prevail in aftermath?

I'm not sure that I understand you. We identify the material source as the instigator. Then, we would attack the material source. While the nuke may have been originating from somewhere else, there is no denying where the weapons grade materials come from. It is the weapons grade materials that we would source after, not the design.

[physicsmonk]

Sir,what I meant was would proliferating actual blueprints also account for while determining retribution as it is a significant component in getting a program up and running.You have replied to it.Thanks.

[Inst]

One question: Why does any use of nuclear weapons lead to a full nuclear exchange? The way I understand is that nukes tend to be tit-for-tat exchanges. If I nuke one of your cities, and you're nuclear capable, what does it mean if you launch all your missiles? The moment I spot your missiles, I launch all my missiles for final retaliation, and you'll be dead. On the other hand, if you don't launch any nukes at all, you've destroyed your nuclear credibility. So instead, you launch a limited nuclear strike to reassure the world of your willingness to murder millions of innocent people, those of your assailant's, and those of your own.

[gunnut]

One question: Why does any use of nuclear weapons lead to a full nuclear exchange? The way I understand is that nukes tend to be tit-for-tat exchanges. If I nuke one of your cities, and you're nuclear capable, what does it mean if you launch all your missiles? The moment I spot your missiles, I launch all my missiles for final retaliation, and you'll be dead. On the other hand, if you don't launch any nukes at all, you've destroyed your nuclear credibility. So instead, you launch a limited nuclear strike to reassure the world of your willingness to murder millions of innocent people, those of your assailant's, and those of your own.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

No one is willing to lauch for fear of testing the other side's credibility. It's the ultimate poker game and no one's willing to call the bluff. Calling the bluff means certain death for most involved. We have some crazy people on this planet, but not that many.