Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[XXSockXX]

We did. But it never happened, because someone was always too scared and/or reasonable to go through with it. It would have been the end of the world (or close enough to it), that makes people think before acting.

[Dutchling]

We did. But it never happened, because someone was always too scared and/or reasonable to go through with it. It would have been the end of the world (or close enough to it), that makes people think before acting.

With 'world' do you mean Europe, the US, Western Russia, and perhaps parts China, India, and Pakistan?

[Another]

While I support MAD as tried and proven method of preventing open total war in cases where both sides were sure they would be invaded nuclear weapons can be surprisingly ineffective deterrent.

The closest to a full conventional war involving a nuclear armed state was in my opinion Falkland issue. It seems that possession of strategic missiles by the UK did exactly nothing to influence Argentina there. If Argentina had stronger conventional army and won that - any application of nukes would still be out of question.

Nuclear arsenal also had not prevented USA to lose at least 1 not very conventional war (Vietnam).

[XXSockXX]

We did. But it never happened, because someone was always too scared and/or reasonable to go through with it. It would have been the end of the world (or close enough to it), that makes people think before acting.

With 'world' do you mean Europe, the US, Western Russia, and perhaps parts China, India, and Pakistan?

Well, there are enough missiles to blow up the planet. Realistically a US vs Russia nuclear war would have devastated huge parts of the northern hemisphere, the rest of the world would have suffered from the fallout and nuclear winter. That could very well mean the end of civilization, at least a Mad Max scenario.

The closest to a full conventional war involving a nuclear armed state was in my opinion Falkland issue. It seems that possession of strategic missiles by the UK did exactly nothing to influence Argentina there. If Argentina had stronger conventional army and won that - any application of nukes would still be out of question.

Nuclear arsenal also had not prevented USA to lose at least 1 not very conventional war (Vietnam).

Vietnam was one of the proxy wars we talked about - it was bad, but didn't escalate into a global conflict.
The Falklands war barely qualifies as a war, compared to other modern wars. It was just a skirmish and it was over quickly. Argentina never had a chance to win a conventional war against the UK, and that's why nukes never were a question.

[Owlbread]

The current Syrian War is, in my opinion, a proxy war between the big Western powerbloc and Russia, Iran and to a much lesser extent China.

[XXSockXX]

I'm not so sure about that. The situation is too confusing in Syria. Sure, Russia supports Assad and Iran is involved with the local shiite militias. But the West doesn't really know who to support and what to do. It's definitely not as clear cut a proxy war as Vietnam or 80s Afghanistan. The fronts are not as clear as they used to be, the superpowers are not what they used to be and the Middle East is a huge mess. I'm pretty sure if Assad had just refrained from killing that many of his own people, the West wouldn't have had much of an issue with him.

[hector13]

I'm not so sure about that. The situation is too confusing in Syria. Sure, Russia supports Assad and Iran is involved with the local shiite militias. But the West doesn't really know who to support and what to do. It's definitely not as clear cut a proxy war as Vietnam or 80s Afghanistan. The fronts are not as clear as they used to be, the superpowers are not what they used to be and the Middle East is a huge mess. I'm pretty sure if Assad had just refrained from killing that many of his own people, the West wouldn't have had much of an issue with him.

It's unfortunate that the only thing the West and Russia seem inclined to do is supply weapons to them and say "we're not really going to help you, but here, have this gun and shoot that person who used to be your neighbour but just happens to believe differently than you in this conflict." because the best way to stop people fighting is to give them the means to continue fighting.

Who's supplying Syria?

Edit for link

[Sheb]

Again, nukes only deter two things: large-scale invasion and nuclear attack.

The rise of China is irrelevant to the first, because they're too far away. For reasons of geography, Russia is the only one that could launch such an attack. (It also explain why Iran and NK are keen on nukes: for both of them a large-scale invasion is a possibility). But Russia is ageing power with, a third of the population and military spending and a fifth of the EU's GDP. They're no match for us, with or without nuke, at least for as long as the conflict is conventional.

As for a nuclear attack, while not impossible my reading of the last 70 years is that an alliance with the US is enough to deter that.

Actually, I can see 2 points to keeping an UK nuclear task forces:
1) They can serve as bargaining chips in disarmament talks. It's basically why I don't want the US the get its tactical nukes out of Belgium right now: they might be militarily useless, but they can be a chip to talk Russia into disarming its own significant stockpile of tactical nuke.

2) An integrated EU would be a significant world power, for which having nuke might be justified. The French and British nuclear programs are a good way to keep the capability and skills necessary if we are to establish an EU nuclear program.

[palsch]

Worth remembering that the British nukes are an essentially second-strike supplement to the US's own nuclear sub fleet.

Given the nature of the weapons (ballistic MRIV missiles) they can't be used outside an all-out nuclear exchange. Given the number of weapons (40 across 8 missiles) they don't really stand as more than a small part of such an exchange. They are either a targeted revenge strike after the UK is gone or a hard-to-stop bonus to an American full scale strike. They have effectively zero tactical value outside of MAD.

One of the proposals back during the 2010 election was to replace Trident with nuclear-tipped cruise type missiles, making the subs into a tactical nuclear strike force. Whether this is better or worse than straight up disarmament depends on who you are. I'm personally shaky about making conventional and conventionally used weapons potentially nuclear; hard to tell till it goes bang; why there are no non-nuclear versions of Trident or any of the other big nuclear ballistics, even though it could be useful strategically.

[shadenight123]

The problem with nukes is the infrastructure destruction and the radiation.

On the other hand, a selective and well placed biologically engineered plague would be the 'future rulebreaker'. The first nation to create such a 'threat' would undoubtedly win the war hands down.
A highly viral-highly contagious-highly selective brand of bacteria that kills only on determinate specific conditions (like dryness/wetness, or air pollution, or anything that can be engineered) and then tie those conditions to those of the enemy.
No one would launch a nuke on that, because really...it's just a cold after all.

[10ebbor10]

We have quite a few biological weapons already. Problem with them is that they tend to be highly local. After all, bioengineered limits seldom survive past a few generations, so you have to work with limited spread pathogens, like Anthrax.

[Evil Knievel]

It seems that maintaining the appearance of nuclear strike capability involves continuous testing, aka demonstration of that ability. A good demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
(Click close to the end if you don't want to enjoy 15 minutes of *bling* *bling*...)

It seems to me that this is an additional cost to be considered in the discussion. You got to keep using them, causing all kinds of issues, that i won't even start to name ...

And requirements: For example, you need a country vast enough to contain a remote place or own some far-away island with an insignificant population.

[Loud Whispers]

The difference is that China is on the other side of the world. The Chinese leadership turning all warlike would be more like Imperial Japan. Nasty, violent, and not a security concern to Europe at all, due to it being a continent away.

Imperial Japan was a concern to Britain before, and China is a concern for Australia and New Zealand today. If the UK literally exploded, the vanguard captains would be left with the choice to turn over command to one of two countries, the USA, or Australia.

[shadenight123]

If china turned militaristic, America would crumble to dust.
This isn't about being 'anti-america' but about who's holding who's purse.

Actually, the new weapon of mass destruction is no longer the nuke or biological...
it's the stock market.

Try force-selling all your nations' bonds, force the banks to sell what stocks they have in their accounts to crash the market, tear apart the economy and voilà...
catastrophe is served.

[Sheb]

Loud Whisper: Back in WWII, the UK had significant holdings in Asia that they don't have anymore. Concerns toward Japan don't apply as such.As for China being a concern for Australia, it's irrelevant as we were discussing the British nuclear program.