Nuclear Weapons Obsolete?

[Guest]

Short time reader, first time poster

I have a question, could, or would nuclear weapons eventually become obsolete due to defense systems such as the US Missile Shield (of course a MUCH refined, more reliable one)
Obviously the US is not the only nation with such goals as to shield it self from the threat of nuclear winter, and other nations are bound to follow suite in due course.

So in 20, 30, 50 years will these WMD’s become obsolete when nations have Missile Shields capable of shooting down ICBM’s or is one always going to slip through the cracks if fired in mass numbers? Or will missile technology evolve in ways to counter the threat of lasers and other future weapons?

And here goes question #2
Assuming you could remove the threat of a nuclear war, would this be a good thing for world peace or is the threat of mutual destruction keeping world peace between the super powers?

[Bill]

Everything is rendered obsolete eventually. If we stick around long enough, hydrogen thermonuclear devices will no doubt join the list of discarded technologies.

[canoe]

The short answer to you question is no.

And until we find some more effective way to kill/destroy mass amounts of people nuclear weapons will remain the most effective last resort weapon for the countries that stock them.

And while I beleive its possible to build a missile defence system I don't beleive its possible to build one thats 100% reliable. When launched in significant numbers some of the warheads will make it through.

And to answer you question about would the world be more peaceful if there were no nuclear weapons. IMO no, history makes that one pretty self explainitory.

[Bill]

You are a very shortsighted person Canoe.

I'd bet big bucks that in 2106 ICBMs are completely and utterly inneffective weapons.

In 100 years laser and targetting technology will be so good that it's very likely that missile technology itself will be largely discarded by the major world powers of the day(whoever they may be).

[canoe]

You are a very shortsighted person Canoe.

I'd bet big bucks that in 2106 ICBMs are completely and utterly inneffective weapons.

In 100 years laser and targetting technology will be so good that it's very likely that missile technology itself will be largely discarded by the major world powers of the day(whoever they may be).

Theres always a better delivery system. People are pretty ingenious when properly motivated. I can recall people saying the MBT would be completely useless in the future because of all the new modern anti-tank weapons. And at least for the moment I still see them rolling. Are they more vulnerable now? Yes, but for the most part the designers and users have changed tactics to keep up with it.

And I wouldn't worry about missile technoligy I think its going to be a pretty safe industry for a very long time.

[Bill]

Well we're just going to have to wait and find out.

IMO by 2075 lasers and various other beam weapons will utterly dominate the battlespace.

[gunnut]

ICBM might become ineffective due to advances in missile defense technology, but other delivery means still exist. Sneak a cruise missile through. A suicide bomber with a suitcase? Something else will come along that we haven't even thought of.

The 2nd question: no, removing nukes would actually be worse. Tally up the number of dead through warfare from beginning of civilization right up to WW2. Tally up the number of dead after WW2 until today. Take any era. I can bet that the number of dead was actually greater as a percentage before the introduction of nukes. The number of major wars between nation were also greater. The world today is the safest it has ever been. Yes, there are sufferings around the world. But there were sufferings, much greater in number, before WW2. We just don't see it on CNN/Fox/BBC every single day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The perception plays a great role here.

This world is fairly stable. Like it or not, USA playing the world police, arrogant maybe, is necessary to maintain some semblence of order.

[dalem]

Atomic weapons (I love the retro label!) were first conceived as military weapons - just another bullet in the sherriff's belt. They were a bomb like any other bomb, you just didn;t have to aim super-close and you would still hit what you wanted.

They (inevitably?) evolved into mass destruction and terror weapons, and were never used as more than political weapons.

As military weapons they have been obsolete for a couple of decades - conventional warheads can be aimed with such accuracy and power nowadays that you no longer need to waste a city to kill a bunch of factories, or blast a countryside to mission-kill a battalion of laagered tanks.

That's my layman's view anyway. At least here in the U.S., we've progressed beyond the need for nukes to achieve purely military goals.

-dale

[canoe]

As military weapons they have been obsolete for a couple of decades - conventional warheads can be aimed with such accuracy and power nowadays that you no longer need to waste a city to kill a bunch of factories, or blast a countryside to mission-kill a battalion of laagered tanks.

That's my layman's view anyway. At least here in the U.S., we've progressed beyond the need for nukes to achieve purely military goals.
-dale

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The U.S has never required the use of nuclear weapons to achieve its military goals, true. However the U.S as it exists today would not be able to operate anywhere near as freely as it does at the moment without its nuclear stockpiles.

Quite the opposite I think if the U.S destroyed its stockpiles it would effectively be at the mercy of other nuclear powers which have been increasing in number lately.

For the U.S at least nuclear weapons are a deterrent, basiclly its telling everyone else 'if you nuke me or my allies, I'll wipe you off the face of the planet' which has proven an extremely effective deterrent for national defence. Hence no other country has attempted to invade or take American territory since the U.S acquired nukes. In the most basic sense nuclear weapons have become a defensive weapon for the United States.

Infact I'm somewhat astonished at how long its been since anyone deployed a nuclear weapon in combat. I'm personally not as optimisic for the future, of all the countries acquiring or attempting to acquire nuclear weapons Iran is the one that makes me the most nervious. The arab muslim population has proven to be extremely unstable lately and combining that religious fanatisim (and the fetish they have with becoming martyers) with nuclear weapons in my opinion can only lead to bad things happening.

[dalem]

My point is that nuclear weapons evolved quickly beyond simple battlefield weapons to become political weapons as well.

Nowadays the U.S., or indeed any equally-advanced technological nation, no longer needs nuclear weapons to achieve decisive and total military results - conventional weapons have evolved to such a degree that a thousand pounds of well-placed TNT (or whatever) fills the role of what a pound of poorly-placed plutonium (or whatever) was needed to accomplish 30 years ago.

I agree that politically nukes have just as much weight as they always have.

That's my opinion anyway.

-dale

[Guest]

thanks for the answers.... i have always been with the belief that good old nukes are stopping alot of bad things

[Sandman]

Well from a theoritical standpoint, there are many possiblities that would make nuclear weapons obsolete. If you want to explore internet legend, you could look at the works of Nikola Tesla, who in the early 20th century predicted and maybe invented such weapons as Scalar weapons, which would provide a perfect shield, or offense, instant and just as destructive as nuclear, with no radiation, in his "death ray" theories which the Soviets bought for $25,000.0 from him around 1939. When he died the FBI confiscated all his work notes in 1943. Are they in existence? Do they work? Tesla invented/discovered the Alternating Current form of electrical distribution. He also had over 700 patents. Only a couple of his threories really have been proven wrong, and he did die in poverty supposadly talking to pidgens, at least in his mind. He was the "mad scientist" of legend and movie lore. Was he on to something? Some say the Soviets caught on and exploited their technology. Others say it is all bunk. Weather control? Earthquake control? WHo knows. Scalar technology is either a very well kept secret or a legend close to UFO's and bigfoot's existence.

[Bill]

ICBM might become ineffective due to advances in missile defense technology, but other delivery means still exist. Sneak a cruise missile through. A suicide bomber with a suitcase? Something else will come along that we haven't even thought of.

The 2nd question: no, removing nukes would actually be worse. Tally up the number of dead through warfare from beginning of civilization right up to WW2. Tally up the number of dead after WW2 until today. Take any era. I can bet that the number of dead was actually greater as a percentage before the introduction of nukes. The number of major wars between nation were also greater. The world today is the safest it has ever been. Yes, there are sufferings around the world. But there were sufferings, much greater in number, before WW2. We just don't see it on CNN/Fox/BBC every single day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The perception plays a great role here.

This world is fairly stable. Like it or not, USA playing the world police, arrogant maybe, is necessary to maintain some semblence of order.

You can always put a nuke in a suitcase sure, but why would you bother when you can put a quantum singularity device in that same suitcase?

Like i said, nukes will have their day when they too are considered militarily obsolete.

[gunnut]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The U.S has never required the use of nuclear weapons to achieve its military goals, true. However the U.S as it exists today would not be able to operate anywhere near as freely as it does at the moment without its nuclear stockpiles.

Actually Dale was correct. The first atomic bomb was treated just like any other bomb, except 1000 times bigger. The Manhattan project aimed at harnessing fission for its explosive potention. They didn't know about other secondary effects like radiation sickness.

It was thought back then that and atomic bomb was so powerful that it may crack the earth's crust. That's like saying if we detonate many nukes at the same time it may kick up enough dust and debris to block out the sun

The atomic bombs became a weapon of last resort, a terror weapon, after we saw the type of devastation from tiny 20kt devices dropped in Japan. Both US and USSR built megaton devices during the cold war. The largest ever was a USSR 59Mt device detonated in Siberia.

Both sides relied on the total destruction of the earth as a deterant to all out war. Both sides tried their best to develop new counter measures and new first strike weapons. But neither side had the confidence that their gadgets would work 100%. The bad thing, or the good thing, about nukes is that it only takes 1 to really ruin your day.

[gunnut]

You can always put a nuke in a suitcase sure, but why would you bother when you can put a quantum singularity device in that same suitcase?

Like i said, nukes will have their day when they too are considered militarily obsolete.

Well, in that case the counter measure didn't make nuclear weapons obsolete. It is a new, more powerful, more terrible weapon that replaced nuclear weapons rather than render them innert.