# What's the point to pursuing nuclear weapon programs nowadays? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577 "2012-01-25T04:51:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/21 "2012-01-25T11:03:22Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yeah, if you want to seriously stretch the definition as Vicullum did Well, you said “attacked militarily”; you should have been more specific if several kinds of military attack don’t qualify. > [@](#): > > If you compare that to the German invasions of a pre-Nuclear USSR or France or the Japanese invasion of a pre-Nuclear China or the US invasion of a pre-Nuclear North Korea the difference is stark and the reason for wanting nukes seems pretty damn obvious. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the current world to world war II and its aftermath. It’s not as though Hitler deciding to invade france (within the context of already fighting the allies in a world war) is anything like a country just out of the blue deciding to invade france today. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/22 "2012-01-25T11:34:28Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/23 "2012-01-25T12:33:47Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > a) yes, the mad mullahs really are that crazy. They really believe they’re in a jihad which justifies their using nuxe against infidels. Why the reluctance of Westerners to accept this? Many Westerners do “accept” that - because they are looking for excuses to demonize the Iranians. That doesn’t make it true. > [@benbo1](#): > > Does anyone doubt the Nazis & Imperial Japanese wouldn’t have used em had they gotten them in WW2? Democracies going to war against totalitarians now realize the savagery of the enemy they’re fighting. Iran would set the world aflame were it to bring an end to the jihad (and consequently the infidels in the process). Nonsense. Iran isn’t anywhere near that crazy or that extreme. It’s no liberal democracy, but Nazi Germany? Ridiculous. > [@benbo1](#): > > c) proliferation - perhaps the biggest threat & reason why we must deny them - they have no need to perfect delivery systems once the fissioning is worked out - they merely can hand out suitcase nuxe like lollipops to terrorists like Al Qaida & have them do all the freelance dirtywork, like Syria does with its (non-nuclear) weaponry in Lebanon & elsewhere. Not a chance. Nobody gives nukes to loose cannons like terrorists; for one thing, there’s no guarantee that the terrorists wouldn’t use it to nuke _Iran_. And they are well aware that if they had terrorists set off a nuke in the US, we’d use it as an excuse to genocide them. There’s no such thing as “plausible deniability” here; no one would care. We didn’t give _our_ terrorists nukes, the Soviets didn’t give _their_ terrorists nukes, the Iranians won’t give _their_ terrorists nukes. > [@benbo1](#): > > d) bargaining chip/blackmail. ‘You want us to abandon our nuke program? Fine. Give us $20 billion dollars. Or force Israel to abandon its land. Or give us 200 F35 fighter planes.’. They could have done that a long time ago if they wanted to; they haven’t because that’s not the point. The point is that if they have nukes America won’t invade and kill a million or two Iranians and the leadership, and leave the rest to squat in the ruins. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/24 "2012-01-25T14:06:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Many Westerners do “accept” that - because they are looking for excuses to demonize the Iranians. That doesn’t make it true. > > Nonsense. Iran isn’t anywhere near that crazy or that extreme. It’s no liberal democracy, but Nazi Germany? Ridiculous. What Iran are you talking about? The same Iran that want to [execute](http://technorati.com/politics/article/iranian-government-delays-pastors-death-sentence/) a Christian pastor for not converting back to Islam? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/25 "2012-01-25T15:11:25Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > What Iran are you talking about? The same Iran that want to [execute](http://technorati.com/politics/article/iranian-government-delays-pastors-death-sentence/) a Christian pastor for not converting back to Islam? And? I didn’t say the government was nice or tolerant; but executing religious dissidents is a long way from national suicide. Nor does killing one or a hundred or even a thousand people put them in the same category as Nazi Germany. Or the Soviet Union, for that matter; they killed an awful lot of people, they had nukes, yet they failed to hand them over to terrorists or launch them in a suicidal attack. ---
**Author:** ![isaiahrobinson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/85e7bf/32.png) [@isaiahrobinson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/isaiahrobinson)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/26 "2012-01-25T15:13:49Z")
> [@Vicullum](#): > > All this talk about Iran lately is making wonder if anyone can explain, in realpolitik terms, what they have to gain by trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Look at all the other countries with nukes. Not a single one has been used militarily since 1945. We got thousands sitting around collecting dust. Joining the nuclear club seems like joining Mensa–all bragging rights, but ultimately pointless. > > And even if Iran acquires them and sets one off in the battlefield, wouldn’t that just bring universal condemnation, not to mention a higher likelihood to use ours to reduce their country to a puddle of molten glass? It’s a deterrent. If Saddam Hussein had been in possession of working nuclear weapons in 2003, and had credibly and explicitly threatened to nuke Israel if the US launched an invasion of Iraq, do you think the invasion would have gone ahead? Almost certainly not, unless the US thought it could nullify that threat first. It’s a trump card that changes the dynamic of military and political calculations, not a weapon you’re going to be using regularly. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/27 "2012-01-25T15:22:43Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Has any leader of any western country ever actually been involved in a military offensive on the front line? You do know that quite a few U.S. Presidents had served in the military, right? Looking at wiki, Kennedy, Ford, Bush the Elder, and LBJ got shot at (WW2). (Don’t know how close Ike came to the shooting.) ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/28 "2012-01-25T15:49:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yeah, if you want to seriously stretch the definition as Vicullum did you can probably claim that all the nuclear powers have been invaded. > > Back in the real world, no attack on a nuclear power has been serious in the sense of actually threatening the existence of the state or the welfare of its citizens. If you compare that to the German invasions of a pre-Nuclear USSR or France or the Japanese invasion of a pre-Nuclear China or the US invasion of a pre-Nuclear North Korea the difference is stark and the reason for wanting nukes seems pretty damn obvious. IMHO, Blake pretty much hits it on the head. The example that comes to mind of a nuclear weapons owning power (NWOP) being invaded in an existence-threatening war is the already mentioned [Yom Kippur War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) of 1973. This war nearly sucked in the Soviet Union and United States, as the Soviets were not pleased at the prospect of their Egyptian client state falling and the U.S. was going to stop any proposed Soviet intervention. I don’t believe it was widely known at the time that Israel possessed nuclear weapons, which is certainly a failure of Dr. Strangelove’s observation on the Doomsday Device. All other cases of armed conflict involving a NWOP, really falls into the category of armed disagreement, rather than an existence-threatening war. I think you can include clashes like the [Sino-Soviet border fights of 1969](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino%E2%80%93Soviet_border_conflict), the periodic sparring [India and Pakistan have over Jammu/Kashmir](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts) (Though note that they haven’t fought a “serious” war, like the 1965 or 1971 versions, after India tested its first nuclear device in 1974. The Kargil War of 1999 only began after Pakistan acquired its own nuclear weapons.), the [Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War), and the already mentioned Falklands conflict. None of those conflicts were going to threaten the existences of the involved NWOPs. I’m not sure how to characterize the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then again, I think the full story still remains to be told of how command and control was maintained of the various nuclear weapon assets of the Soviet Union and its satellites. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/29 "2012-01-25T16:00:14Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > All other cases of armed conflict involving a NWOP, really falls into the category of armed disagreement, rather than an existence-threatening war. > \ > None of those conflicts were going to threaten the existences of the involved NWOPs. I would tend to agree that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent but this line of argument is poor. How many countries that could conceivably have a nuclear weapons program, have had their existences threatened since WWII? ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/30 "2012-01-25T16:20:58Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I would tend to agree that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent but this line of argument is poor. How many countries that could conceivably have a nuclear weapons program, have had their existences threatened since WWII? Off the top of my head: Iraq, Libya, Syria (potentially), North Korea, South Africa (from within, and they gave up their program shortly before the transition from apartheid-rule), and perhaps Iran. For a given value of ‘threatened’, the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Cold War. If the Able Archer 83 worry or the Cuban Missile Crisis had coincided with one of NORAD or PVO-Stratny’s computer screwups…it could have gone down real bad. We don’t invade the ones that have demonstrated that they actually have weapons. We have invaded the ones that might, or that are close to getting them. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/31 "2012-01-25T16:34:05Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Iran wants nuclear weapons to prevent the US from being able to overpower them with massive airstrikes. Same reason North Korea wants them. How would having nuclear weapons stop airstrikes from a nation that isn’t reachable by their nuclear devices? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/32 "2012-01-25T16:38:59Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Off the top of my head: Iraq, Libya, Syria (potentially), North Korea, South Africa (from within, and they gave up their program shortly before the transition from apartheid-rule), and perhaps Iran. For a given value of ‘threatened’, the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Cold War. So of the eight countries you’ve listed, 3 have or had nuclear weapons at the time. Straight away those stats don’t look too good. And of the rest? Somehow I doubt Syria in 1948 or Korea in 1950 could have had a nuclear programme (note: I didn’t add that condition as a fudge; countries that could conceivably have a nuclear programme generally require a degree of wealth and organisation. And I’m saying countries that are wealthy and organized are far less likely to be involved in “threats to their existence”) And again: I’m sure nuclear weapons work well as a deterrent; it’s this line of argument which I don’t think works. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/33 "2012-01-25T16:43:59Z")
It’s what people have already said. A country that has nuclear weapons can draw a line and say “don’t cross this.” A country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons is ultimately subject to whatever bigger countries want to do to it. The precedents Iran are probably looking at are Iraq and North Korea. Iraq didn’t have nuclear weapons; Iraq was conquered and the Saddam regime was ousted from power. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the Kim regime is still in power. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/34 "2012-01-25T16:46:08Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Iran is run by people who think they will all be sent to heaven if they die in the act of exterminating the enemy (in this case, America and Israel.) Why people don’t understand this or take it more seriously is beyond me. I’m not saying it should be the top consideration in foreign policy decisions and negotiations, but you can never put this **fact** too far in the back of your mind. It should be considered the canvas on which every move they make is to be understood. What’s _really_ scary about this, the real destabilizing part, is that they’re the less likely actor to fuck things up. See, there are nuclear powers out there—powers with confirmed nukes—that make a wider claim. In Iran, the claim is that you get sent to heaven if you die in the act of martyrdom. In some of these other countries, that’s not a requirement at all. America is run by people who think they will all be sent to heaven if they die in _any_ act, as long as they believe in a particular phrasing and depiction of a sky-fairy. That’s some pretty scary shit right there, almost as scary as how specious reasoning still persists on the Dope despite fighting ignorance since ’72. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/35 "2012-01-25T17:04:45Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well, you said “attacked militarily”; you should have been more specific if several kinds of military attack don’t qualify… No true Scotsman would attack a nuclear-armed country. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/36 "2012-01-25T17:07:27Z")
A concise thread about the Apartheid-era South African nuclear weapons program that may be of interest: [Who was South Africa's Nuke aimed at? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=637129) ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/37 "2012-01-25T17:08:26Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Off the top of my head: Iraq, Libya, Syria (potentially), North Korea, South Africa (from within, and they gave up their program shortly before the transition from apartheid-rule), and perhaps Iran. For a given value of ‘threatened’, the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Cold War. If the Able Archer 83 worry or the Cuban Missile Crisis had coincided with one of NORAD or PVO-Stratny’s computer screwups…it could have gone down real bad. > > We don’t invade the ones that have demonstrated that they actually have weapons. We have invaded the ones that might, or that are close to getting them. > [@Mijin](#): > > So of the eight countries you’ve listed, 3 have or had nuclear weapons at the time. Straight away those stats don’t look too good. > > And of the rest? Somehow I doubt Syria in 1948 or Korea in 1950 could have had a nuclear programme (note: I didn’t add that condition as a fudge; countries that could conceivably have a nuclear programme generally require a degree of wealth and organisation. And I’m saying countries that are wealthy and organized are far less likely to be involved in “threats to their existence”) > > And again: I’m sure nuclear weapons work well as a deterrent; it’s this line of argument which I don’t think works. I’m not sure where either of you are going with this. It seems very unlikely that, even if they had nukes, they would use them in a civil war. I think that knocks Libya and Syria off the list. South Africa was with invasion by its neighbors (who also supported SA’s inter resistance movements), and it may be that deterrent worked in this case, but they got rid of their program because of the threat in internal revolution (they didn’t want a majority rule, i.e. black, controlled government having nukes. Iraq and Iran went to war with each other, and both were developing nukes, but AFAIK never actually got them, or don’t yet have them. Leaving the US, Russia and North Korea, all of whom have (arguably) been successful with nuclear deterrence. Personally, I don’t think an of them were ever genuinely threatened with invasion or destruction, but they plan and operate as much for potential as for reality. I must add though, that if it is known that a country is developing nukes but doesn’t yet have them, that country is putting itself at considerable risk. There’s some actual history to back this up. Oops: forgot note on Syria. Though it might have had its existence threatened in the 1973 war, I doubt very much if it could possibly have developed nukes by that time, and since then there has not been any similar threat. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/38 "2012-01-25T17:14:07Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Why people don’t understand this or take it more seriously is beyond me. I’m not saying it should be the top consideration in foreign policy decisions and negotiations, but you can never put this **fact** too far in the back of your mind. It should be considered the canvas on which every move they make is to be understood. … Show me some support for this, because I think it’s total bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/39 "2012-01-25T17:17:54Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Has any leader of any western country ever actually been involved in a military offensive on the front line? The [Whiskey Rebellion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) probably doesn’t count, but George Washington personally rode at the head of the troops sent to suppress the armed rebels. There was no fighting and everybody went home. The rebellion is credited with being one impetus behind the development of political parties in the US, however, so we are still paying the price today. 😛 > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > No true Scotsman would attack a nuclear-armed country. He’d get kilt! ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577/40 "2012-01-25T17:44:37Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Show me some support for this, because I think it’s total bullshit. My post is my support. You may want to keep reading 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-to-pursuing-nuclear-weapon-programs-nowadays/610577.md?page=3)