Posted on Aug 4, 2016
Nuclear Weapons. What are they for and should we ever use them again?
18.5K
168
130
18
18
0
I know this is not an easy question and it has countless branches and sequels. The first thought that comes to mind, is our nuclear power checked by the entanglements of bad actors, and are we forced to fight proxy wars with countries like Syria and North Korea because of their alliances with other nuclear powers? We have already shown the world and other non-state actors that we would prefer to fight prolonged wars with no end in site rather than use our nuclear power even after our country was attacked and thousands of people were killed. Terror groups hide among the population and are not easily targeted, small regional conflicts do not merit nuclear consideration and the expediency of using the weapons may be overshadowed by potential world outrage, environmental consequences and collateral damage. In another post SrA Chiles stated that our democratic way of life and constitutionally protected freedoms would have to be at risk before we truly considered using nuclear weapons again. I agree!
Office of the President (POTUS)
Nuclear
Warfare
Congress
Environment
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 65
11
11
0
As one who spent a significant part of his career training to drop the bomb, I'd say the use of nuclear weapons today is the same as it has always been, deterrence. The issue we have today is our ability to demonstrate that we are willing to use a nuclear weapons if pushed to that threshold. Back in the Cold War days when we had aircraft on alert it was relatively easy to demonstrate our resolve by launching a wing or two of aircraft, as we did during the Cuban missile crisis. Nothing gets an adversaries attention like knowing a strike is airborne. Those days are gone forever and todays world of missiles increasing DEFCONs just doesn't have the same impact, plus targeting strategic missiles against evolving targets isn't easy.
Additionally our ability to threaten with nuclear weapons on anything other than a strategic level seems to be pretty limited. I think arms limitation treaties have pretty much dwindled our inventory of tactical nuclear weapons, so our option, if we chose to use them, is a multi megaton response. We do have some flexibility with nuclear cruise missiles but even they have targeting limitations and may be overkill. Any use of nuclear weapons will produce massive casualties and environmental impact, but face the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, so limited strikes could achieve military goals and be recoverable.
As someone commented, nuclear weapons are a modern tool of war and I think they should always be available as a deterrent. We just need to be more emphatic that we can and will use them if pushed.
Additionally our ability to threaten with nuclear weapons on anything other than a strategic level seems to be pretty limited. I think arms limitation treaties have pretty much dwindled our inventory of tactical nuclear weapons, so our option, if we chose to use them, is a multi megaton response. We do have some flexibility with nuclear cruise missiles but even they have targeting limitations and may be overkill. Any use of nuclear weapons will produce massive casualties and environmental impact, but face the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, so limited strikes could achieve military goals and be recoverable.
As someone commented, nuclear weapons are a modern tool of war and I think they should always be available as a deterrent. We just need to be more emphatic that we can and will use them if pushed.
(11)
(0)
8
8
0
Thought-provoking question. Such a difficult one to master. On one hand, the existence of nuclear weapons will never diminish until something "better" comes along, which may just as easily never happen. However, if nuclear weapons were used, is any country willing to deal with the global repercussions? IMO, No. If the human race wants any chance of sustainment or chance of survival, nuclear weapons are the last option we want to use. Just as much, the reassurance of knowing we could wipe entire countries off the map if it came down it eases the ability to sleep at night. (Again, just an opinion!)
(8)
(0)
A1C (Join to see)
Completely agree Sir! I also initially thought of the environmental and collateral damage involved. Nuclear weapons have a sever impact on the environment, but is the environment worth more than existence? I am certain that if the use of nuclear weapons was an inevitable solution, the environment is pushed to the very back the minds of the powers who guide these decisions. As far as collateral damage, where to start... The impact of nuclear weapons has the ability to have such a detrimental effect on life, land and everything involved within those. Millions of lives are easily lost with no ability to separate the innocent from the convicted. Lastly, in concern to the repercussions in international relations, I believe nuclear weapons are a completely separate entity within themselves. Some may consider them a weapon of war but they symbolize so much more. They mean absolute annihilation to an intended target. I just read an article about a politician in Texas whose solution is to use nuclear weapons on Muslims. Ridiculous, but bare with me... Say we decide to carry out this task. China may not be an ally to any of these middle eastern countries, but say they see this as a threat and a means for the U.S. to gain a global title. Do they retaliate, to nip us in the bud, before we "gain too much power?" or do they let us fight our fight. Did we just open warfare on a grand global scale to all who are afraid of the loss of their existence now, or did we find a solution to a problem? This is a gamble that I do not see a positive result coming from. Again, just to reiterate I do not condone this mans ideals.
(2)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
A1C (Join to see) - 'Better' already exists -- orbital bombardment. Take, say, a thousand-pound tungsten projectile and merely drop it from space. All the kinetic energy (It might take a larger projectile, but probably not much) and none of the radiation.
(0)
(0)
A1C (Join to see)
SN Greg Wright Unfortunately sir I am not very well informed on such a thing. But will do my research.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
A1C (Join to see) - Well, an easy (and honestly, the original, lol) analogy is: simply think of asteroids.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Capt Walter Miller
Thanks for the info. I can tell that you are a pod person from another reality.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
TSgt Melissa Post
SSG Kevin Wells - good to know! I don't know if I would have wanted that civilian job though haha.
(2)
(0)
PVT Richard Dale
Capt Walter Miller - I absolutely hate the feeling, even when awake when getting used to MOPP I had a moment where it felt like I was drowning.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google