From Tuli Kupferberg:
All the H-bombs were trying to console one of their number, who was sorely depressed.
“Geez, what’s your problem!”
“I want to be a bullet”
“A bullet! You nuts? Youi’re a goddam thrity megaton H-bomb, the baddest of the bad, why would you want to be a puny little bulle?”
“I miss the personal touch.”
I am of the belief that nukes have more than likely deterred a world war or two since the last one. Not even the US wants to take on a country with nukes.
Just as important, even if everybody agreed, how would we ( or anyone ) really know someone had disarmed totally. Sure, it’s apparently pretty much impossible to hide thousands of ICBMs, but if one country managed to hide a dozen or a hundred, and everyone else disarmed, it would have a huge advantage. It could use them to, say, destroy or conquer it’s disarmed neighor; even when everyone else re-armed, they couldn’t do much because they’d be right back in the MAD scenario.
As an aside, Free Dyson once pointed out that this is the one practical use for a missle shield. You’ll never be able to build the magic stops-everything Star Wars shield that Reagan and friends pushed for; you can always overwhelm such a shield with enough numbers. It might be possible to build a shield as a safeguard against someone having a few missles stashed away; you would then have an upper limit that the shield would need to stop. Without such a treaty, or even prospects for it, such a shield is wasted effort.
We couldn’t – but if every nuclear power were reduced to the position of Israel (only a few nukes, and since they won’t even officially admit they have those, deterrent/threat value is limited), wouldn’t the world be a safer place?
Meaning, if fired, they won’t detonate? What a pity! 
Maybe. But isn’t even a very bloody conventional war preferable to a possible nuclear war?
Good point. Of course, no missile shield could stop al-Qaeda from bringing a small nuke into New York Harbor by sailboat, if they had one. And the longer proliferation is allowed to continue, the greater the chance terrorists or other rogue actors will acquire some. Kerry made that point when pledging a collect-up-all-the-nukes policy during the 2004 campaign; I’m surprised it didn’t get more traction.
As I understand it (through my few connections with Sandia National Labs, none of whom have anything to do with the nuclear stockpile) the lack of being able to do any testing has meant that tests are now simulated. This, of course, requires massive amounts of computer power and personally I’m not sure I’d trust a computer simulation over an actual detonation. (This reluctance to trust the computer isn’t just in nuclear weapons maintainence.) If push comes to shove, I’d rather that the nukes we’re about to hit a country with are sure to work. I mean, spreading a bunch of radioactive material (especially plutonium) over the countryside is going to ruin a lot of people’s days but things should still work properly.
As I said in another thread, I was a little disappointed that the nuclear-tipped bunker-busting bombs were cancelled. Those sorts of weapons would be far more useful than an H-bomb designed for MAD.
I’m surprised I haven’t seen a thread on the US-India nuclear deal.
Yes and no. As I see it, the benefit of reducing the number of nukes isn’t to prevent nuclear war; given the simplicity of the technology ( they did manage it in the 40’s ), and humanity’s quarrelsome nature, I think nuclear wars are inevitable. What lowering the number of nuclear weapons does is prevent such wars from being civilization-enders. A dozen nukes hitting US cities would be very, very bad; an enormous tragedy; but it would not destroy America, like a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union would have. Most people would survive. Worldwide civilization would survive a small nuclear war just fine; tens of thousand of nukes would be another matter.
No, but as I say above, one or two terrorist nukes won’t destroy us. Cold comfort for the actual victims, I know.
As already indicated, even getting rid of the known arsenals would not negate such apossibility. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. The argument could be made that such arsenals lessen the possibility. Of we could snap our fingers and erase the discovery of the a-bomb, then you may have a point. But who is to say that more conventional world wars wouldn’t mother an even worse weapon that was “tested”, like a biological that couldn’t be stopped.
A very bloody conventional war is certainly preferable to a very bloody nuclear war.
OTOH a limited nuclear strike is imminently preferable to a rehash of WWII.
Let me put it like this, if you had the choice between nuking Belrin when you knew Hitler was there, or refighting the entire Second World War which course would you take? Morally and militarily the nuclear war is the far better option.
The trick is to keep nuclear war limited, which might be dicey these days.
The other question is, how possible is possible. Is 0.0000000000001% chance of nuclear war better than an absolute certainty the USSR attempts to steamroll over western Europe and Japan as they almost certainly would have done? I don’t have the answer, but it sure isn’t clear cut.
I would fully disagree… as you point out later it is a very limited view on things…
All of that is very important… but more importantly… nuclear weapons are more or less really big bombs… and not much else…
There is a component to nuclear detonation, risdual radiation… which is horrific… but we have/can do as much damage with conventional weapons… only much much slower (same number of deaths and destruction… people just don’t die as quickly…)
If you believe that non-nuclear weapons don’t leave some nasty ‘after effects’ you are confused as to how they work, and what happens when you blow up some of these installations…
Nuclear weapons CAN be city destroyers… but they can also be tatical in nature, where you have almost instant destruction, with little risidual mess, verses some of the hazardous waste nightmares we currently have, using ‘conventional weapons’…
We killed (the allies) more people with conventional bombings of Europe (civilians as much as soilders) as we did with the 2 bombs we dropped on Japan…
There were also just as many birthdefects/after effects of the firebombing in Tokyo as we did with fat man and little boy… though they are harder to tie down…
Nuclear isn’t nearly as evil as it is made out to be… the real enemy is war itself…
No… chances are they will go off (just like you could eat the food in a bloated can)… but they might or might not work as intended… you will have MUCH worse issues with peppering an area with partly detonated (or UN detonated) nuclear fuel than you will with a full nuclear explosion… Having an ICBM where the conventional fuel onboard, is unable to fully detonate the nuclear fuel… can cause the same blast area to NEVER be raido active-free, (both Uranium and Plutonium; would take MILLIONS of years to reduce to a level to even be safe to ‘test’ the area)…
I would like to see a cite for this claim. A nuclear weapon is going to spread its constituent radioactive material whether is detonates efficiently or not. Even a nuke operating at peak efficiency produces a lot of radioctive debris. My WAG is that a nuke that didn’t detonate efficiently would contaminate a smaller area because it would create less radioactive fallout, the radioactive cloud would not rise as high nor spread as far, due to the lower yield.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030829.html
For a decription of what happens with a normal nuclear fallout…
A fully exploded nuclear device will yield short lived nuclear isotopes… Uranium and Plutonium are both very long lived… they would are also much heavier and would not spread as far (having a larger area is BETTER, as it means a reduced concentration)…
You are comparing initial radiation with risdual… they are both horrific… but one will be gone in an instant… (the massive nuclear blast) … the other until the elements that make it up decay to an acceptible level…
A ‘bad’ nuclear weapon is basically a VERY VERY VERY highgrade dirty bomb (http://science.howstuffworks.com/dirty-bomb.htm)… while you might fear the instant death and death toll… it does not have the same effect at all…