Nuclear Weapons

File: nuclear test site_2.jpg (308KB, 940x630px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 940x630px

>>32831844
Everything you've learned about nuclear weapons from pop-cultural sources and works made by liberal scaremongers (such as "Threads") is wildly inaccurate. For example, "nuclear winter" following a massive nuclear exchange is a complete myth for a number of reasons, 100% impossible.
In reality, there are several scenarios of how a conventional war escalating into a nuclear one will play out.
The most likely scenario of a nuclear war will involve two simultaneous counterforce strikes from both sides. A counterforce strike is a precision nuclear strike targeting enemy ICBM silos, tactical WMD stockpiles, ICBM control and command centers and nuclear submarine bases. If you look at the stockpiles of both Russia and US, you'll see there's barely enough (given that some hard targets will warrant 2-3 warheads) munitions for such a strike. Most of the targets listed are located in very remote areas, and civilian casualties are unlikely. After the strike, the population, civilian and military infrastructure, industry and agriculture will emerge completely undamaged, ready for a conventional World War 3.
To sum up, modern nuclear weapons exist to deny the enemy the ability to use his own WMDs on your industrial and military targets.

>>32831844

Fat Man was not a hydrogen bomb. It was an implosion-type atom bomb, while Little boy was gun type.

>>32834051
Pretty much this desu.. This guy has it right. don't worry about a nuclear war between the interceptors and large amount of actual military targets cities will be pretty low on the shit list.

File: tmp_22784-51lXio79itL._SX258_BO1_204_203_200_1344738277.jpg (22KB, 260x289px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 260x289px

>>32831844

There's a plethora of books that explain both the technical and theoretical of nuclear weapons, I strongly recommend you read one.

Good place to start is 'Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety' by Eric Schlosser. Very accessible book, provides a history of choices, the people who made them and the background to those choices. Mixed in with personal stories, it certainly isn't a dry boring read that some of the more academics can be.

>Why? Is there any argument to the benefit of these weapons?

Why do you believe a nuclear weapon is any different to another weapon?

>Why has no country moved to adopt the disarmament call of the UN?

Because they remain part of the checks and balances that keep parity between nations.

>Who would really be willing to use these weapons?

In theory, those that maintain them. Your willingness to use them is a part of your creditably.

>What is the point?

That it is better than the alternative of not using them.

>>32831844
>Those two uses mark what arguably should have been the one proving factor that our world and humanity as a whole is better off without nuclear weapons.

Why

>>32831844
Did US ever pay reparations for the bombings or help rebuild the cities?

>>32831844
Bumping because I've been wanting a nuclear thread. Nuclear strategy is incredibly unique. For example, we don't actually need any land based nuclear rockets. The other two arms of the nuclear triangle, air and sea, are capable of accurate strikes. The leading argument of land based ICBMs is a sponge effect, where the US government hopes to soak up most of the enemy's warheads through silos. Another argument for ICBMs is that if the US has too few targets, then the enemy (Russia) would only destroy have to send a few warheads to America and the chance of an American reaction would be low.

File: Minuteman3-MIRV.jpg (41KB, 478x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 478x600px

Another strange thing about our nuclear strategy is that we purposely limit our anti missile capabilities. It was in an agreement with Russia that we agreed to not build up anti missile systems, ensuring that both sides could end each other if wanted.

I call bullshit. Iirc, in the (admittedly very dated) target lists that have been released, population centers were slated for destruction. Nuclear war= total war, and it would make zero sense to leave an enemy's population centers and industrial capacity intact.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/

>>32834051
>there is only russia and america in the world
>there are no strategic targets anywhere else in the entire globe

Europe is much more densely packed than USA or Russia, and it was (and still somewhat is) packed with strategic targets (mainly airfields and nuclear weapons stockpiles). Take Italy for instance: there are a number of such locations, which are very close to major cities. Just a single low yeld nuclear bomb on such a target would wreak havoc even on the civilian population.

This just in case Russia wanted to target just the military targets.

>>32834282
Thank you for your response, I'll go ahead and read this book.

As to some of your counterpoints, nuclear weapons are different from regular weapons because of their scale and more importantly their lasting health effects, at leas in my opinion. I understand wanting to harm or even kill your enemy but most rational people would agree that causing generations of his children and possibly grandchildren to be stillborn or born with deformities is inhumane. There would realistically be no scenario where you are going to need a nuclear weapon with no collateral effect to any bystanders.

I understand that without our nukes we supposedly cannot defeat theirs, but that is like a self fulfilling prophecy. Two men with guns aimed at each other can only guarantee their survival if they both put their guns down. Same situation, if nobody threatened to use the nukes none would need them but I guess that is idealistic thinking.

>>32835780
What do you think about the fact that there are some 27,000 nuclear weapons - ICBMs included. Knowing it would only take a few warheads to destroy the US wouldn't you say there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy our entire planet multiple times over?

>>32836212
There aren't 27000 nuclear weapons. Russia has 1600 to 1700 warheads total, US has 450 Minuteman silos and probably a few hundred more weapons on various platforms. Not all of these weapons, on both sides, are combat-ready.
>>32835822
>very dated
Probably like 1950s dated, when most nuclear weapons were gravity bombs, and the most accurate nuclear missiles were unguided. The entire doctrines of Massive Retaliation existed because neither side had weapons that could hit any target smaller than a city.
Now that everyone has high precision weapons, the benefits of counterforce strike are evident: with each strike you deny the enemy the ability to deal massive damage to you, wrecking your industry and military installations, destroying your population's will to fight and so on. As you can see from the list above, USA and Russia have just about enough weapons to suppress each others nuclear capability. Each missile you don't use for a counterforce strike massively adds to a chance that the enemy will be able to decimate your assets. There's really no other option. If you want to win the war, that is.

>>32835780
>we don't actually need any land based nuclear rockets.
Land based systems respond more rapidly to orders.
SSBNs take time to receive orders and ready for launch.

>>32835822
No nucleat plans have been released that factor in Limited War that became the strategy in the later 60s eary 70s