Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

[radcen]

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

It has been said by many that the primary reason the Soviets never used nuclear weapons on us is because they knew we had them too, and would use them on them in retaliation. May be a tad simplistic, kind of a 'nutshell' description, but I think there is merit to that point-of-view.

We often try to keep other smaller nations from getting nuclear weapons. The stated rationale has been what they might do with them against their neighbors. There might be a grain of truth to that, but I suspect that the real reason we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is because we don't want them to use them against us should we decide to attack them.

 

[joko104]

Obviously they are a deterrent.
However, the potential to attack Iran is not the only reason we do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That also is obvious.

 

[radcen]

Obviously they are a deterrent.
However, the potential to attack Iran is not the only reason we do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That also is obvious.

Iran is just one of several nations that fit. They're just the current one in the news, is all.

But that's kind of the point. Iran having nukes would be a deterrent... to us... and we don't want to be deterred (should we choose to want to attack).

 

[MaggieD]

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

It has been said by many that the primary reason the Soviets never used nuclear weapons on us is because they knew we had them too, and would use them on them in retaliation. May be a tad simplistic, kind of a 'nutshell' description, but I think there is merit to that point-of-view.

We often try to keep other smaller nations from getting nuclear weapons. The stated rationale has been what they might do with them against their neighbors. There might be a grain of truth to that, but I suspect that the real reason we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is because we don't want them to use them against us should we decide to attack them.

Having nuclear weapons and being able to deliver them transcontinentally are two very different animals. We aren't afraid they'll use them on us, we're afraid they'll use them on anyone.

 

[radcen]

Having nuclear weapons and being able to deliver them transcontinentally are two very different animals. We aren't afraid they'll use them on us, we're afraid they'll use them on anyone.

Fair point, but since we are in their backyard anyway, it's still a threat to us.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Ask North Korea. The deterrent factor has certainly worked for them. You may not agree with Iran if they are seeking to produce nuclear arms, but you cannot deny their reasoning for doing so.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Fair point, but since we are in their backyard anyway, it's still a threat to us.

Indeed and the best thing to do is to get the **** out of the region. We have no business there. They have every right not to want us there. They have ever right to want to be able to defend themselves against us. If the situation was reversed the US would be apoplectic.

 

[MaggieD]

Fair point, but since we are in their backyard anyway, it's still a threat to us.

Only incidentally. If Iraq had used nuclear weapons on US troops, they would have destroyed their own country.

Now. A suitcase bomb in New York City? Whole different animal.

 

[Risky Thicket]

As much as it pains me to say this, I am afraid we are going to venture into nuclear hell over Iran. My guess, before June; maybe in March.

Like it or not, we are inextricably linked to Israel and to Saudi Arabia. Neither nation wants a nuclear Iran. The US doesn't have to initiate the war, we simply need to be in the general area. We have at this point 4 or 5 aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Some say that 6 is the magic number. In addition, the US is or has made other strategic moves in the region. If someone completely oblivious to the politics of the region were to look at the US build-up and was asked whether we were acting in a peaceful or warlike manner, I think the answer would be obvious.

If, or when, the fit hits the shan in Iran there is no way in hell the conflict will be contained. Iran won't be a pushover, but the issue is far greater than Iran. We very well may face retaliation from Russia, even China. What will Pakistan do? Would Pakistan take the opportunity to move on Kashmir? What will Turkey do?

It is my opinion that war with Iran may be the beginning of WWIII and America will not go unharmed.

Sorry.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Lets say Iran is making a nuclear bomb (no one knows thats why the UN team is there), lets say they are and they do.. Who gives a ****?

 

[ecofarm]

They have every right not to want us there. They have ever right to want to be able to defend themselves against us.

"They" are the dictators, tyrants and oppressors of our brothers.

If the situation was reversed the US would be apoplectic.

Because that would be tyranny overthrowing democracy.

If, or when, the fit hits the shan in Iran there is no way in hell the conflict will be contained. Iran won't be a pushover, but the issue is far greater than Iran. We very well may face retaliation from Russia, even China. What will Pakistan do? Would Pakistan take the opportunity to move on Kashmir? What will Turkey do?

It is my opinion that war with Iran may be the beginning of WWIII and America will not go unharmed.

Nonsense. Russia has internal struggles and China cannot abandon our debt. Pakistan will not suddenly go to war with India and Turkey is a fly-over State. You think Turkey would leave NATO??

 

[MaggieD]

"They" are the dictators, tyrants and oppressors of our brothers.

Because that would be tyranny overthrowing democracy.

Would we allow U.N. inspectors to inspect our nuclear facilities? I don't think so. What would we do if the oil cartel refused to sell oil to the United States? We would go to war. Back a tiger into a corner, and yer gunna' git scratched.

 

[ecofarm]

Our nuclear material generation facilities are inspected. No-one is asking for a tour of officially military facilities.

Countries have refused to sell oil to the US before. Remember the 70s? We didn't go to war.

 

[radcen]

Individuals in others nations... some even from this nation... would enjoy seeing us get hurt. Most other people leading other nations know they would suffer if we suffered (too much). China being just one example.

 

[Wake]

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

It has been said by many that the primary reason the Soviets never used nuclear weapons on us is because they knew we had them too, and would use them on them in retaliation. May be a tad simplistic, kind of a 'nutshell' description, but I think there is merit to that point-of-view.

We often try to keep other smaller nations from getting nuclear weapons. The stated rationale has been what they might do with them against their neighbors. There might be a grain of truth to that, but I suspect that the real reason we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is because we don't want them to use them against us should we decide to attack them.

Keeping peace is having a bigger stick. A stronger weapon. Something to keep potential enemies from disturbing the peace. During WW2 the Japanese would not cease their attack. Nuclear bombs made them stop.

Nuclear weapons are indeed a deterrent. The nuclear bomb, if it could, would undubtedly open its mouth and say this:

"Should massive armies seek to kill Americans and destroy America, I and my copies will be used to end it."

It would have to be the last resort, imho.

 

[Mya]

In responsible hands nuclear weapons are a deterrent because of the M.A.D theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) this assumes all parties want to avoid the risk of nuclear warfare at all costs.

But in the case of Iran this is questionable in view of their ultra nationalism and their religious beliefs which state that Islam will spread worldwide during a period of destruction.

 

[radcen]

In responsible hands nuclear weapons are a deterrent because of the M.A.D theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) this assumes all parties want to avoid the risk of nuclear warfare at all costs.

But in the case of Iran this is questionable in view of their ultra nationalism and their religious beliefs which state that Islam will spread worldwide during a period of destruction.

Interesting point. For the most part I agree with this, and there is that whole martyr thing that many extremists believe in, but I think that, deep down, most people still fear death enough to make the MAD theory still valid.

 

[joko104]

Having nuclear weapons and being able to deliver them transcontinentally are two very different animals. We aren't afraid they'll use them on us, we're afraid they'll use them on anyone.

^ That's it.
Now does it require intercontinental missiles to delivery a nuclear weapon. Any ship would do. And Iran is increasingly developing missile capabilities.
The enhanced danger is that it is a culture driven by religious dogma, which is fundamentally dangerous. This is far more dangerous than for a country with a pragmatic government possessing nuclear weapons.

 

[joko104]

In responsible hands nuclear weapons are a deterrent because of the M.A.D theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) this assumes all parties want to avoid the risk of nuclear warfare at all costs.

But in the case of Iran this is questionable in view of their ultra nationalism and their religious beliefs which state that Islam will spread worldwide during a period of destruction.

The Iranian spokesman explained that because Israel is physically such a tiny country, a nuclear exchange between them would 100% eliminate Israel, but Iran would not be eliminated.

 

[radcen]

The Iranian spokesman explained that because Israel is physically such a tiny country, a nuclear exchange between them would 100% eliminate Israel, but Iran would not be eliminated.

Is he naive, or spewing rhetoric? Enough of his country could be so completely deviated that it might as well be annihilated.

 

[Canell]

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Yes. If you know I have a gun you would think twice before attacking me with yours.
And why is that Americans thought the soviets wanted to take over the USA? What would they do it anyway?

 

[LaMidRighter]

The best answer is maybe. It's not yes because not all countries are alike and it's not no because some countries will be deterred by facing a like armed political opponent. Basically it comes down to the power structure of those holding the nukes. Russia was certainly deterred by U.S. held arms as was the U.S. deterred by Russia for the simple reason that the governments still were accountable to the people within and it would have been a mutual suicide both politically and from a human loss standpoint, both governments would have destabalized after a nuclear war and above all that still showed concern in different ways for their people.

China could possibly be deterred in it's current form because it is somewhere in the middle of accountability, yes they have human rights abuses but are showing signs of mild decentralization. Either way the power is in a handful of people who realize a nuclear war is a last resort. The people of Iran by all accounts are lovely humans, but their government sucks, it's run by people who hold absolute power and they have shown a disregard for the safety of their own citizens in the past, there are no good variables to stop them from launching if they felt like it and that is a problem. At least with N. Korea the military and Kim family realize they would be wiped off the map if unilateral nuclear attacks were launched making it debateable that even those crackpots would go full nuclear on a whim.

I'm getting long winded but.............the answer is definitely maybe.

 

[Harshaw]

Lets say Iran is making a nuclear bomb (no one knows thats why the UN team is there), lets say they are and they do.. Who gives a ****?

That's rather childish. You have much to learn about the world.

 

[molten_dragon]

I think the threat of nuclear force is a deterrent to rational people. Not everyone who leads a country is necessarily rational though.

 

[tecoyah]

Therin lies the rub...yes, Nukes can stop a war. Yet we all get to live with the fear some crazy F@cks gonna do something stupid.