Nuclear weapons money pit

[Duffy]

Nuclear weapons the money pit

I live in the US so I know as a tax payer what it cost for ICBM and all the other non conventional toys one could have. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no tree hugger or have anything agenst having them. Once a country has gone down that path it’s real hard to justify reversing the decision and throwing away a trillion dollars or so. Well with the exception of South Africa.

In today’s world what does nuclear weapons truly give a country, this is were the fun starts

1 Political gain, perhaps with in those countries borders but on the world stage I think not. If countries or there leaders didn’t listen before there still not going to hear you now. Depending on how you acquired them others may not listen at all.

2 Projection of power, (Military) I will have to say no on this one also. To project power you would have to use them. Any country that uses them in aggression has just destroyed it self (Yes that includes the US and Russia) … Even if the doomed country is the aggressor with conventional weapons, and if said country has no nuclear capability that’s even worse. First strike is almost impossible to justify.

3 Defense will nuclear weapons alone keep other country from imposing there will on your country or invading your borders. Not really. If your country depends on shipping or any type of cross border trade with out a strong military and or navy there is no way to protect you interests. As far as deterrence from others with nuclear weapons, a country willing to use them first is not going to care who has them so all you could do is retaliate.
There for as deterrence it would have failed.

So what are your thoughts???

 

[SABRE]

Nuclear weapons the money pit

I live in the US so I know as a tax payer what it cost for ICBM and all the other non conventional toys one could have. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no tree hugger or have anything agenst having them. Once a country has gone down that path it’s real hard to justify reversing the decision and throwing away a trillion dollars or so. Well with the exception of South Africa.

In today’s world what does nuclear weapons truly give a country, this is were the fun starts

1 Political gain, perhaps with in those countries borders but on the world stage I think not. If countries or there leaders didn’t listen before there still not going to hear you now. Depending on how you acquired them others may not listen at all.

2 Projection of power, (Military) I will have to say no on this one also. To project power you would have to use them. Any country that uses them in aggression has just destroyed it self (Yes that includes the US and Russia) … Even if the doomed country is the aggressor with conventional weapons, and if said country has no nuclear capability that’s even worse. First strike is almost impossible to justify.

3 Defense will nuclear weapons alone keep other country from imposing there will on your country or invading your borders. Not really. If your country depends on shipping or any type of cross border trade with out a strong military and or navy there is no way to protect you interests. As far as deterrence from others with nuclear weapons, a country willing to use them first is not going to care who has them so all you could do is retaliate.
There for as deterrence it would have failed.

So what are your thoughts???

1. Deterrence against a more powerful enemy - where there is conventional asymmetry.

2. Prestige - both political (national and international) and technological.

3. Tools of international politics or to be more precise bilateral-diplomacy.

4. Projection of power and military supremacy - enhancing bully potential.

5. Tool of blackmailing - pioneered by DPRK.

These are some of the reasons states go nuclear and they hold true in one way or another.

The objective of nuclear weapons is to create a psychological dilemma in the adversary's mind and mental relaxation in your own mind. Hence, the 3 points you raised are in fact valid as they do play psychologically both within the state and against its enemies.

Much of these hypothesis have been tested and unfortunately proven correct (hence no longer hypothesis). What remains untested is the crossing of the nuclear threshold and nuclear war as they never occurred because the above points held true in the minds of states and their enemies. All were deterred.

 

[Duffy]

Great points
If the budget for the program were spent on the conventional forces would it not be likely asymmetry would be in your favor?.
I must admit I forgot about the "Prestige".

Wouldn't having the most powerful military in a given region allow you bilateral-diplomacy along with international politics even thou your not in the "Club".

During the cold war the likely hood of defending ones Nation against ballistic missals was not feasible but it is becoming more and more reliable.The other means of delivery would have to make it past your conventional forces .

My thought is if a nation has a well trained technically advanced military the only defense is to have the same (Exclude ROE and non committal). Also impact on the economy,I think little money spent on a program of that type will see it's way back into the system. A larger force at least a larger portion would go back into the economy. (I don't know this for a fact).With the amount of money involved which is the better long term investment.

 

[SABRE]

Great points
If the budget for the program were spent on the conventional forces would it not be likely asymmetry would be in your favor?.

I think not. Conventional forces apparently are more expensive in the long run. You would need to cover qualitative and quantitative factors of conventional weapons. Most countries may not have enough financial, technological and human skill resources to over come conventional challenge. For example Iran. With all its oil resources it is still unable to finance a major military project or acquire advance weapons that could match USA and Israel. Hence it has resorted to reverse engineering and inducting large fleet of ballistic missiles.

A better example would be North Korea. DPRK has quantity but quality is virtually zero compared to US, Japan and South Korea. US military might can wipe out DPRK military in almost few days but the presence of large number of ballistic missiles and possible nuclear warheads does keep military adventurism away.

Hence nukes prove to be much cheaper to deter your all powerful enemy. Although Ballistic Missile are quite expensive, their fleet may cost lesser then the maintenance of huge conventional forces.

Wouldn't having the most powerful military in a given region allow you bilateral-diplomacy along with international politics even thou your not in the "Club".

That is if you have the most powerful military or resources to create one. But the share potential of nuclear weapons to wipe out not just entire army but the whole nation makes a conventional superiority questionable.

During the cold war the likely hood of defending ones Nation against ballistic missals was not feasible but it is becoming more and more reliable.The other means of delivery would have to make it past your conventional forces .

There is still no reliable means to counter a ballistic missile, regardless of what the 33 Minutes proponents say. There is no 100% surety. In fact, the presence of BMD might just tempt the enemy to carryout preventive or preemptive strikes. He'll only be deterred if you have nukes yourself.

Nukes are endgame ... developing BMD and undermining enemy's nukes will not avert the game but bring the end much closer.

My thought is if a nation has a well trained technically advanced military the only defense is to have the same (Exclude ROE and non committal). Also impact on the economy,I think little money spent on a program of that type will see it's way back into the system. A larger force at least a larger portion would go back into the economy. (I don't know this for a fact).With the amount of money involved which is the better long term investment.

Large conventional military has more burden on economy, although it is good way to counter unemployment. The problem is that conventional forces need huge financial and technological input while the economic output is almost nil. Its a non-profit investment.

 

[Duffy]

SABRE I would have to agree with you. I have always questioned the roll of nuclear weapons other than M.A.D. I do see the strategic and political advantages to be had .

 

[SABRE]

SABRE I would have to agree with you. I have always questioned the roll of nuclear weapons other than M.A.D. I do see the strategic and political advantages to be had .

Its good to question yourself and others. It gets you your answers.

Nukes have always been questioned. Should they exist? No they shouldn't. Is there an easy way to get rid of them for ever? No there isn't. There is lots of mistrust in the world and greater military asymmetry. Even if you succeed in getting rid of them can you get rid of the knowledge and scientists who know how to work on them? With nuclear renascence in the making it is only going to be difficult to suppress the increase in nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War the world was Bi-Polar. Some weaker states with major distaste for USA hid under the Shadow of USSR which in one way or another saved their @$$. Today these states are weaker then before, have mistrust for US since it invaded Iraq and see nuclear weapons as only way to deter military adventurism on their countries or against their regimes. On the other hand, the 5 legal nuclear states under the NPT (P5) want greater control on further proliferation rather then disarmament. As long as P5 continue to maintain their nuke arsenal don't expect the threatened states/regime not to make attempts to gain nukes.

 

[Duffy]

Well with their development also came nuclear energy so its not all bad. Then of course the prospect of "clean" energy has pushed the sped of nuclear reactors (Atom of Peace) among others. We both know the story from there.
It seems with the lack of authority that the IAEA has along with the inability's of the UN SC to interpret let alone in force international law there is no change in the forcible future. But that for another thread.
In a room full of gun slings no one want to be the first to disarm ( I know thats so American)

 

[powerslavenegi]

Duffy...nuclear weapons are a result of cutting edge research in the field of physics one cannot simply wish them away . Had it not been for Robert Oppenheimer and his team some one else would have invented the BOMB and then rest of the world would have followed suit.

Every developed nation which has economic and strategic assets to protect has or wishes to acquire nukes and for obvious reasons i.e. there already exist powers which posses and and have deployed nukes.

Despite all the cons the nukes in hands of responsible states have actually made the world a safer place ; however with the increased risks of proliferation and chances of one such device getting into the hands of terrorists presents a new challenge in front of the civilized world.

 

[Duffy]

Duffy...nuclear weapons are a result of cutting edge research in the field of physics one cannot simply wish them away . Had it not been for Robert Oppenheimer and his team some one else would have invented the BOMB and then rest of the world would have followed suit.

Every developed nation which has economic and strategic assets to protect has or wishes to acquire nukes and for obvious reasons i.e. there already exist powers which posses and and have deployed nukes.

Despite all the cons the nukes in hands of responsible states have actually made the world a safer place ; however with the increased risks of proliferation and chances of one such device getting into the hands of terrorists presents a new challenge in front of the civilized world.

The discussion had nothing to do with wishing them away. It was a debate weatherer the cost to develop them was worth it. Along with the cost of securing them, Maintaining then,and disposing of the waste. With proliferation the cost has gone down considerably to acquire them. But that is only a small part of the overall cost. I wonder how many counties racing to acquire them understand the longer term cost .Also not every developed nation with economic and strategic assets wishes to acquire them,

 

[powerslavenegi]

Duffy from whatever is known about the wannabe nuke powers and most of the developing countries each of the 'have nots' wish to get their hands on to a nuke and the tricky part is once you get your hands on to one the quest for developing and improving the yields never ends , financial and economic priorities have taken a back seat even in case of countries which do not have a healthy economic growth to boast about.

All in all seemingly rational aspects like 'COST', 'VIABILITY' etc etc take a back seat ; infact the sheer number of nukes amassed by the P-5 are a classic example of this frenzy.

The question which you have raised has infact been raised by many a strategist/politician in Senate and other parts of the world however given the political nature of the subject there is more to this topic apart from just 'rationality' and 'economics'.

 

[jiffylube84]

I would say as of this point in time nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they have taken. They kept the US froming invading Japan, they kept the US and USSR from going at it for 50 yrs, they have so far kept India and Pakistan in thier boxes, and the threat of thier use kept Saddam from using his chemical weapons in the 1st Gulf War. To this day they are the ultimate protection for the survival intrest of the US (no one is going to invade the US as long as the counterattack will turn ones military and industrial complexes into a self lighting glass parking lot inside of a hour). The ultimate truth to the questions of nuclear weapons is they are a necessary evil in todays world as long as they are controled by sane goverments. Think of this if the US was to disarm do you not think that more than a few countries that live under our nuke umbrella wouldn't try to accuire nukes of thier own. Also don't you think a time in the future nukes might be useful for other things besides killing ourselves. You can't put the nuke genie back in the bottle until we come up with something that works better to nullify the other guys military.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Also, lets not forget the importance of the investment for Israel, where the nuclear weapons play a significant part as a deterrent against crazy assheads like Ahmadinejad.

 

[Duffy]

Where were you guys a month ago. I would agree that lots of lives have been save because of the existence of nukes. Disarming is worthless because the knowledge exists and distrust would never allow it. With proliferation spreading nukes like candy where do you see the world in say twenty years maybe longer. If most countries have them are we look at world piece? The big problem is there only a deterrent if theres a return address.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Where were you guys a month ago. I would agree that lots of lives have been save because of the existence of nukes. Disarming is worthless because the knowledge exists and distrust would never allow it. With proliferation spreading nukes like candy where do you see the world in say twenty years maybe longer. If most countries have them are we look at world piece? The big problem is there only a deterrent if theres a return address.

Never? Are you saying we're incapable, as a species, to learn to trust each other enough to get rid of a world-ending capability? That's very pessimistic of our nature, as ugly as it may be. There will be a point in time when they will stop competing for the size of their d..cks and figure out how to coexist in more civil ways. That's talking about major nuclear wielding powers, or even any state militaries. The question of rogue use will also be solved, IMO, once religious and other ideological nutcases lose significance (that must happen at some point, right?.. I hope...)

 

[Duffy]

Never? Are you saying we're incapable, as a species, to learn to trust each other enough to get rid of a world-ending capability?

I hate to say it but yes, and it is ugly. Emotion plays a huge roll in making us human. Motivation is based on emotion. Emotion is in part governed by perception.If there is any distrust at all there is a lack of motivation. Look at how many people we share our day to day lives with. Some may even have similar cultural values and social norms. How many of them would you trust 100%? If you say all your a saint.
Most government's are run by large body's of people that cant even trust each other let alone trust another large body of people who don't trust each other. Then add to that the fact the people with in those body's are always changing. The only way countries would disarm is if something catastrophic was to trigger change. Or a complete restructuring of modern government's. (What would you bet on)
Religious and ideological nut cases have been around at least as long as civilized societies and with the information age it may get better or worse.( I hope I,m wrong but history points in that direction)

 

[PhysicsMan]

I hate to say it but yes, and it is ugly. Emotion plays a huge roll in making us human. Motivation is based on emotion. Emotion is in part governed by perception.If there is any distrust at all there is a lack of motivation. Look at how many people we share our day to day lives with. Some may even have similar cultural values and social norms. How many of them would you trust 100%? If you say all your a saint.
Most government's are run by large body's of people that cant even trust each other let alone trust another large body of people who don't trust each other. Then add to that the fact the people with in those body's are always changing. The only way countries would disarm is if something catastrophic was to trigger change. Or a complete restructuring of modern government's. (What would you bet on)
Religious and ideological nut cases have been around at least as long as civilized societies and with the information age it may get better or worse.( I hope I,m wrong but history points in that direction)

Well, think about Europe. If anyone was asked a couple of hundred years ago, well, even 60 years ago, if France and Germany would ever be able to have completely open borders and essentially be one state having one currency and intertwined militiaries, it wouldn't be believable, and yet... Distrust of this nature is not impossible to heal.

 

[Duffy]

Well, think about Europe. If anyone was asked a couple of hundred years ago, well, even 60 years ago, if France and Germany would ever be able to have completely open borders and essentially be one state having one currency and intertwined militiaries, it wouldn't be believable, and yet... Distrust of this nature is not impossible to heal.

It is nice to see. Look at what it took, Two world war's along with complete destruction of a country. Well actually country's, and the fall of a super power. It is extraordinary to see a unified Europe. If it had happened peacefully and with out the complete destruction of Europe and the German government I would have a different view of this subject.

 

[jiffylube84]

I truely wish i had your hope for humanity but I pride myself on being a student of history and have come up with this, the reason history repeats it's self is because human nature never changes. The only time that I can see humanity quit fighting is when something outside of earth makes us join together and once that is gone we will go back to fighting ourselves. I wish it was not that way but strife is what drives humanity and with out it we would still be in caves. This is the ugly truth about us we are capable of so much good but we need the evi;l to go with it. Back to nukes, even in a wonderful world without war I still wouldn't want to get rid of all the nukes it can be a handy thing to have. I have heard many people say that we shouldn't continue with the national ignition facility because it could lead to nonfissile nuke weapons, I have heard that we shouldn't have antimatter research because it could lead to the most powerful weapons that could be concieved of, all of these are true concerns and chances are that they will lead to better weapons but I would hate to hamstring humanity because of fear.