Thread: What is the role of nuclear arsenals ?

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.

Originally Posted by Le_Scientifique

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.

Originally Posted by Yusuf

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).

Originally Posted by Yusuf

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?

Originally Posted by Le_Scientifique

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.

Originally Posted by Le_Scientifique

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.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

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.

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.