Posted on 11/14/2015 5:49:41 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
Why do we have nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances are they to be used, if ever?
Once the “genie was out of the bottle”, Russia at least was going to develop nukes. One of the more dangerous scenarios is one where only one country has nukes. Then they can hang the threat of a nuke over your head, and there’s basically nothing you can do, but call their bluff.
Eventually, people figured out that nukes can neutralize conventional threats either militarily (if West Germany got over run by Soviet tanks, we could start nuking the tanks), or politically (invade my country and I nuke your cities).
Right no, we basically have them so that we are even in strength to Russia and China. France and UK have them to buy admission to th UN Security Council and meeting on European Security (for a while you “didn’t have a real 20th Century military” if you didn’t have nukes).
India has them as a check on China (from way back). Pakistan has them because India has them.
If Israel has them, it to keep their neighbors out of Tel Aviv. Iraq wanted to pretend to have them to keep Iran out. Iran probably wanted them to buy admission into the “major powers club”, but many just because Saudi Arabia doesn’t have them. Post-2002, Iran knows that having nukes would keep us out.
“traitor would enable them to acquire those weapons.”
Seems Japan doesn’t mess with us anymore.
Once there were other potentially nuclear armed states, the deterrence purpose of nuclear weapons was primarily to deter another nuclear armed state from attacking it. During the Cold War, this deterrence concept was called "Mutual Assured Destruction". It is also why smaller nations like Britain and France developed independent nuclear deterrent capabilities. Even their small nuclear arsenals could inflict enough retaliation to deter even a large nuclear player like the Soviet Union.
Nuclear weapons would likely only be used by a nuclear party against another nuclear armed state, because the international law concept called the principle of proportionality--the collateral damage caused by a nuclear weapon far exceeds the military utility of the weapon. However, in the 1980s there was a push for nuclear weapons with more military utility. Very accurate, small nuclear weapons (designed to strike small military facilities with limited collateral damage), along with the neutron bomb (designed to target enemy troops in the field, likely on one's own soil after the enemy invaded) were deployed. These were considered both "first use" weapons, which could deter a conventional Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of NATO. These weapons served their purpose. The Soviets had to invest more into conventional forces, which drove up their defense spending, and helped bankrupt and defeat the Soviet Union.
During the first Gulf War, the question came up of how to retaliate if Saddam Hussein used nerve gas. The U.S. hinted that any use of weapons of mass destruction would be met with a similar response. The only weapons of mass destruction the U.S. had were nuclear, which made this a veiled threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons. However, Colin Powell later stated the retaliatory plan discussed was to strike several dams north of Baghdad to create a calamity with significant flooding.
The U.S. will maintain a nuclear deterrent as long as there are other potentially hostile states with weapons of mass destruction.
Nuclear weapons are cheap deterrence, but unfortunately, deterrence requires a rational enemy. Radical, apocalyptic Islamic states are not deterrable. But the U.S. is not willing to invest in the military necessary to engage them if needed.
It’s difficult not to dismiss your post with a recommendation to learn about the Manhattan Project.
What situation would cause them to be needed?
Deterrent
Buddy, you totally missed the point and you obviously know nothing about me.
If you think I want Iran or anyone else to have nukes, you are nuts. Obama voter? I would slit my wrists first. You obviously misconstrue posts. Go back to sleep.
There's a reason some amimals dominate the amimal kingdom. A liberal would say its not fair that one animal can dominate another but I'd just go tell him to take it up with the lion or bear he thinks has an unfair advantage. They need to wake up. Life's not fair. Its the reason you feel a sense of accomplishment when you achieve goals or overcome obstacles on your own. As to why Iran should not have nukes; they will use them. Their propensity towards violemce, their history of and involvement with terrorism, and their barbaric nature fueled by a hatred towards everyone but Islam followers ensures it. Its common sense. We don't give a can of gasoline and matches to a young boy and tell him to go play. This Iran deal = really bad idea.
I totally understand their goals and that is why I wish we had a president who was not on their side.
“Because Iranians get in front of TV cameras and microphones and say as soon as they get one they will use it on us.”
But there’s more. They also believe that our counter attack would put them in paradise with 72 virgins. The old Soviet Union on the other hand feared our counter attack because they were mostly atheists who believed once their lives ended then that was it, that a nuclear counter strike would end their one chance at life.
If we can have nuclear weapons, why can't Iran?
Without further explanation of what you're asking, the answer is appropriate.
So you think we should use nuclear weapons on ISIS controlled areas?
Which muzzie country should we nuke?
So do you think that if we got nuked we could say stop that and everything would be OK? Our pResident seems to think so. Can you say “Stop That” and stop and repair an incident like Paris yesterday. The only thing that stopped the muslims from taking Europe was Charles Martel defeating them in 16 out of 17 battles. Do you want to become a muslim and pray to mecca 5 times a day or lose your head? Get informed. Ignorance like yours brought Obama and his plan for the destruction of America.
Number of of American casualties during WWII 291,557
How many Japanese were killed by the atomic bomb?
280,000.
Altogether, casualties from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb attacks are estimated to be about 280,000. In Hiroshima 70,000 Japanese died immediately after the attack, and by 1950 casualty figures had raised to approximately 200,000, as a result of radioactivity exposure and cancer. In Nagasaki, between 40,000 and 75,000 Japanese may have been killed immediately after the bombing, and by 1945 estimates report a total of 80,000 deaths.
You missed the point.
You assume a lot, don’t you?
I agree. Let’s get rid of them. Start in Raqqa. Then we can move on.
We bombed Japan in an attempt to avoid a large scale invasion. The atomic attacks were a gamble. If they succeeded in Japan's capitulation, the would be much more humane than an invasion. If not, we needed to ensure the atomic attacks damaged Japan in a way to make the invasion less costly.
Hiroshima was attacked because it held the largest concentration of Japanese troops which could be used to defend Kyushu. The second attack was intended for Kokura, with the alternative target of Nagasaki. Kokura was the site of Kyushu's largest arsenal. Nagasaki was a major naval port, and would be the primary means for Japan to resupply and reinforce its forces on Kyushu.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan's surrender and saved hundreds of thousands of allied lives (estimates ranged from 267,000 to 800,000 U.S. dead), and probably over a million Japanese lives.
What people do not realize is were were planning to move all of the B-17 and B-25 bombers from Europe to Okinawa and Iwo Jima, and we were going to start an aggressive bombing campaign in support of the invasions. Japan's surrender saved not only hundreds of thousands of Japanese military lives, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives.
Some argue other actions could have motivated Japan's surrender. But the atomic bombing of Hiroshima could not motivate Japan's surrender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.