What is the point of nuclear weapons?It seems to me that they are weapons that have one functionality and that is to trigger a chain of events that would inflict nuclear catastrophe on the world. So they are an insurance policy rather than a real tool.They haven't been used in war since 1945 where two were used. Today seven countries officially have nuclear weapons: the P5, India and Pakistan. If you care to speculate then there are nine once you include NK and Israel.But as an insurance policy they aren't that good at preventing wars or enforcing peace.These weapons haven't prevented wars from happening between nuclear states versus non-nuclear states. There are so many wars like this it's not worth examining each in detail besides commenting on the fact that one party owning a nuclear arsenal doesn't seem to deteriorate or diminish the will to fight from the non-nuclear party that they are fighting against. America didn't use nuclear weapons against Vietnam. The USSR didn't use them against Afghanistan. Russia doesn't use them against Ukraine today.Nuclear weapons have not prevented conflicts between even nuclear armed defenders versus non-nuclear aggressors - see the Falklands war as an example. Argentina attacked the territory of the UK which had nukes and faced no nuclear retaliation.Nuclear weapons have not prevented conflicts between two nuclear powers either. We can observe this year's fight between Pakistan and India. Further back in the 1980s, a nuclear armed China demanded the entirety of the Hong Kong and the New Territories from the nuclear armed United Kingdom.So what are nukes for? I appreciate that this thread is perhaps engaging in alternative histories. Nuclear weapons advocates argue that we live in a much more peaceful world because of them. But is this really true?Every war since 1945 hasn't used nuclear weapons and there are likely dozens more conflicts yet to be fought this century alone which won't either.
>>64224800they prevented another world war for control of western europe or chinese land grab of siberiaif pakistan didn't have nuclear weapons last year india could've destroyed it militarily and by cutting it off from water with nearly no consequences
As a follow-up because I ran out of characters in the OP:I'm not advocating for nuclear disarmament. But I do want to know what the strategy is behind procuring a weapon that hasn't been used globally for eighty years and might never be used again.The next best argument I've seen in favour of them is that nukes can be used as a last resort to preserve the state that is in an existential war and is surrounded by hostile armies. Consider a hypothetical where Hezbollah and Hamas were marching on Tel Aviv. Israel could theoretically glass the eastern Mediterranean as a hail mary (pun intended).But is that 'barbarians at the gate' scenario likely for any other nuclear power? No other nuclear armed state is surrounded by potential hostile states with militaries and populations large enough to mount a large ground invasion that could threaten the existence of the state. I dont think anyone believes that the Indian military could perform a ground invasion to invade Pakistan in that sort of manner, and that would be your next closest example.There are no plausible conflicts that would seriously threaten the existence of the countries of the US, UK, France, China, and Russia. Perhaps overseas territories can be threatened. Maybe national interests round the globe can be thwarted or hindered. But as we see in previous example, no nuclear power is prepared to use nuclear weapons in a conflict that is somewhat low-stakes for the nuclear armed country. Or as in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war or the Soviet-Afghan war which are not low-stakes wars but not directly threatening to the governments of the countries. No-one thought the Taliban nor the AFU today are going to march to Moscow like the Bolsheviks or the Wehrmacht did.I think I'm asking too many questions and rambling a bit but that's because I'm genuinely quite confused as to what these weapons' purposes are. I just don't get the point of them.
>>64224800>What is the point of nuclear weapons?Forcing surrender and increasing cost of enagement to unfeasable levels but tactically they are useless, they are strategic weapons.
It allows you to act like a cock with no repercussions. See Russia and North Korea.
>>64224800>why do we have noooksBecause you can't go back in time and uninvent the Japmelter 3000? Once you have a technology in the modern era (20th century onward) it doesn't get lost, so either you can have a world where you don't have nukes and china does, or you have nukes and china does. But you don't get to live in the imaginary world where we say actually let's just forget about this whole "atomic bomb" thing and not do nukes. For a time after the cold war society became childlike in its sentimentalities, they thought that war was over forever and we should all get along and start dismantling our nukes as a sort of show of global friendship. This is all of course entirely farcical, and the countries that agreed to such a disarmament immediately became lesser powers to nuclear-armed nations, leading to our present day Ukrainian war. Observe how Trump throws Ukraine to the sidelines at every opportunity, as Russia has nukes and they do not. Every country that has nuclear weapons demands and requires respect, North Korea would not be even a footnote in present day if not for their nuclear arsenal. Might makes right, do not ever let anyone deceive you into weakening your own nation for the sake of some imagined global friendship.
>>64224800>What is the pointYou don't get invaded
>>64224800There hasn't been a world war since WW2 so I say nuclear weapons have done a pretty good job.
>>64224800>What is the point of nuclear weapons?To provide a range of options. Like any other tool, however, within that there's nuance. You have tactical, sub-strategic and strategic. The doctrine of nuclear weapons is not universal. Some states accept all nuclear weapons are politically strategic, but not militarily strategic.>It seems to me that they are weapons that have one functionality and that is to trigger a chain of events that would inflict nuclear catastrophe on the world...No, disregard the presupposition that the deployment of nuclear weapons inherently will lead to a "global nuclear catastrophe".>They haven't been used in war since 1945 where two were used...You have a narrow definition of use. Their existence is also part of their use. Nuclear weapons are "in use" everyday. Providing deterrence.>But as an insurance policy they aren't that good at preventing wars or enforcing peace.Opinion.>These weapons haven't prevented wars from happening between nuclear states versus non-nuclear states... This is true: nuclear weapons have sometimes not deterred wars where there's an asymmetrical relationship, however, they are inherently part of the calculation a hostile actor will take.>Nuclear weapons have not prevented conflicts...See above.>Nuclear weapons have not prevented conflicts between two nuclear powers either. We can observe this year's fight between Pakistan and India. This is also true, but also as above, they were a part of India's and Pakistan's options on how far escalations could go. Both have fought, and will continue to do so, in such a way that makes it unlikely the deployment of nuclear weapons would be required.>Further back in the 1980s, a nuclear armed China demanded the entirety of the Hong Kong and the New Territories from the nuclear armed United Kingdom.Bad example, not applicable.
>>64224800>>64224952So what are nukes for?Providing options.>I appreciate that this thread is perhaps engaging in alternative histories. Nuclear weapons advocates argue that we live in a much more peaceful world because of them. But is this really true?Let's break it down like this: If both parties are aware that one or both can do serious or existential damage. Would that not factor in how they may approach each other?>Every war since 1945 hasn't used nuclear weapons and there are likely dozens more conflicts yet to be fought this century alone which won't either.See beginning remark about "use".>>64224836>I'm not advocating for nuclear disarmament. But I do want to know what the strategy is behind procuring a weapon that hasn't been used globally for eighty years and might never be used again.There isn't a singular strategy. Both the weapons and policy have symbiotically evolved over the last eighty years. Policy drives technology. Technology drives policy.>But is that 'barbarians at the gate' scenario likely for any other nuclear power? No other nuclear armed state is surrounded by potential hostile states with militaries and populations large enough to mount a large ground invasion that could threaten the existence of the state. I dont think anyone believes that the Indian military could perform a ground invasion to invade Pakistan in that sort of manner, and that would be your next closest example.Nuclear weapon states disagree.>There are no plausible conflicts that would seriously threaten the existence of the countries of the US, UK, France, China, and Russia.Again, those nuclear weapon states disagree. >But as we see in previous example, no nuclear power is prepared to use nuclear weapons in a conflict that is somewhat low-stakes for the nuclear armed country.As of yet. You should not presume it can remain that way.
>>64224952Lol what was the point of this reply retard? You don't explain any of your points.>they work just because mmkayIs your post
>>64224952>>64224971>I think I'm asking too many questions and rambling a bit but that's because I'm genuinely quite confused as to what these weapons' purposes are. I just don't get the point of them.It's good to ask questions. I'd recommend watching these videos in the linked order.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0Dg5gIjhwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_8I5hjNO0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEB3LJ5pskhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2qo5m_hTYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a1exo_vU_k@64224976nah u are
>>64224800The only thing that prevented nuclear war is the equilibrium between nuclear powers, conventional bombing such as dresden or the firebombing of tokyo killed more people than hiroshima and nagasaki combined.There are 2 reason why nukes have not been ever used after that1_The equilibrium of power2_Those that got nukes got a "sphere of influence" thanks to that and using them prevents thatThink about it if the usa used nukes in korea soon every country would be developing them instead of buying us bonds and joining the usd backed new global trade system.If France used them, then germany, finland and others would get them and they would no longer be the top faggots on the eu, bongs using means they can't keep larping as a financial center while being deindustrialized.The Vatniks throw a single tactical nuke in ukraine and in 10 years the nordic strait and the bosphorus are no longer international waterways but national areas backed by nuclear armed nordic coalition and nuclear armed turkey and their only blue water port would become vladivostok encircled by nuclear armed china, north korea, south korea and japan.Not a good idea to use it right?There are two countries that would benefit from the nuke taboo breaking those are Israel and North Korea, but if north korea uses them it's most likely that even china would strike them first with overwhelming force than the usa.
>>64225900Israel on the other side is the only country which game theory favors first nuke usage, hence why the usa gives them gibs, if radical wing get's into power they will erase iran and yemen from the phase of the earth and after two days of sanctions, turkey, germany, poland, finland, south korea, and japan would be asking israel for nukes in exchange of political and economic trade and help.There is 0 way in that scenario most eu countries or turkey would trust macron who is beaten by his groomer wife for security and there is also 0% chance that south korea, and japan keep buying us bonds trusting the white house for their long term security.Hence why the Iran-Israel crap is more dangerous than Ukraine, russia has an incentive to not use nukes, while that is not the case in the middle east retarded conflict going on.People assume nukes were not used due to muh too powerful but that's not the case, tactical nukes would make a lot of sense in modern warfare, it's just that you use a single one and you trigger a series of events that will end with things like international waterways no longer existing in 15 years and everyone will be forced to get into a sphere of a nuke nation or get nukes asap.Let's hope they are never used but i am worried about the middle east nonsense if the Iranians keep doing their retarded thesis that most israelis(mostly descendent of arab jews) are a polish citzen and if they keep throwing shit and pressure they will leave.It's a very dangerous game theory going on there completely different to the thing going on in europe in which Russia actually has an incentive to never use nukes due to their ports locations.
>>64224976Use case for your reply?
>>64224800>What is the point of nuclear weapons?so that you can't get nuked or blackmailed by megafaggots with nukes
>>64224800>What is the point of nuclear weapons?Short answer for humanity on Earth, deterrent from major WW.For humanity as a whole. Defense from a possible 'other' which for anything crossing the Void (if its real) will mean fuck all and be like throwing snap poppers at a tank.
>>64224951>hasn't been a world war since WW2We've been in a slow motion WW3 since 2001
>>64224800They have multiple purposes.>strategic bombingDestroy major cities and everything in them. Much more efficient than conventional bombs.>interdictionDestroy logistical routes, supply hubs, and army staging grounds. Very useful.>area denialSpread radiation across a vast area, forcing the enemy to clean it up.>geopoliticsJust the threat of nuclear weapons has utility. North Korea deserves to be invaded, but it won't be now because it has a nuke.
>>64224800we'd be in a full-blown war with Russia, DPRK, and China right the fuck now if not for nuclear weapons you stupid fuck
>>64227090>We've been in a slow motion WW3 since 2001and if not for nukes we'd have been in a fast motion WW3 since 1955
>>64227090'61 actually. No one has had the balls because >>64227100 and everyone actually agrees that 5200-6000 years down the shitter in 2 hrs to 3 days may not be the way to go...yet.
>>64224871No country that had nukes of their own ever gave them up.The only ones who did were simply housing Russian Nukes.Everyone who developed them still has them. The post Cold War Disarmament was a reduction in the number of nukes between nuclear powers simply as a matter of cost savings in a less openly hostile world. No one went non nuclear, they simply retained enough nukes to burn the world twice over instead of 8 times over since the risk of a sudden disarming counterforce first strike was deemed to be lesser so the huge margin for weapons lost to a first strike wasn't needed.>>64224800They are very good at preventing wars.A great many wars have not escalated or not happened at all because the danger of escalation between nuclear powers was too great. The Cold war was a contest of proxies precisely because a direct conflict between nuclear superpowers was unthinkable.
>>64224800>TL;DRYou misunderstood, nukes aren't there to win any and all violent exchanges before they even happen, they're there to stop countries from being taken over or destroyed through military means.Nukes are not a guarantee you'll never go to war, it's close, but not quite what it's there for.Nukes are a guarantee that removing your country off the map by military means will not be worth it because you can hit 'em with a "fuck you" the likes of which has never been seen.That's why nukes don't stop wars where the stakes are lower than "complete takeover/destruction of the nuke-capable country"No one will use nukes in response to anything less than imminent threat of the country (not necessarily its people) because the only remotely feasible way to stop a nuclear attack by a country with enough sense to keep their delivery points hidden and spread out is to use a lot of very powerful explosives that can cover large areas and destroy everything in that area as quickly as possible, so nukes.Even a "small scale" nuke-off can trigger a nuclear winter, so literally everyone would be in the splash zone when shit hits the fan.That means EVERYONE would do everything they can to keep it from happening, including uniting with sworn enemies against long-time friends.That's why countries like N. Korea and Iran will seemingly commit diplomatic, economic and political suicide for nukes.They know that the end of their countries (or regimes, more accurately) through military force is always on the table (and pretty feasible) and the only way to remove that threat is by having nukes.Actually using nukes is only "worth it" in a nothing-to-lose scenario, and I mean an ACTUAL nothing-to-lose scenario.
>>64227132>Even a "small scale" nuke-off can trigger a nuclear winter, so literally everyone would be in the splash zone when shit hits the fan.Not true, we know better
>>64227273What do you mean "we know better"?If you burn shit cities are made out of you release soot into the atmosphere.If you release enough soot into the atmosphere it blocks the sun (exactly how much depending on how much soot is in the air, naturally)And nuking enough population centers (the denser the more effective) will cause that nuclear winter.It doesn't need to be a full black-out either, even reducing global temperature by 1 or 2 degrees will result in enough crop failure to trigger a global food crisis.We have a good example of even less cooling than that (as a result of volcanic eruptions) causing an agricultural "oh fuck" in Europehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_SummerAnd that's not to mention the psychological/diplomatic/strategic significance of letting the nuclear cat out of the bag
>>64227320Nuclear winter is a theory built on shitty assumptions that have no relationship to the actual deployment of nuclear weapons.You would know this had you been on the board for any reasonable amount of time.
>>64227320Is 800 megatons a "small nuke off"? Also consider nukes aren't volcanoes so you can't really equivocate the weather effects of an eruption with a nuclear burst. Volcanoes are all about expelling ejecta and nukes aren't, you'll probably need a lot more than 800MT of nukes deliberately used inefficiency as ground or underground bursts to put an equivalent amount of ash or sulfur or whatever into the upper atmosphere. There was never any global cooling from the firebombing campaigns of WW2 either.
>>64227357>built on shitty assumptions that have no relationship to the actual deployment of nuclear weaponsIt's more the extrapolation from 'the area between Rhine and Vistula' to 'all of Europe and North America'But you can bet your ass that it would fuck up Europe and most of western Asia for at least a year.
>libya, syria, iraq, ukraine, egypt, congo, grenada, panama, zaire, south africa, rhodesia>no nuclear weapons>all have had their regimes overthrown in CIA-backed color revolutions>russia, north korea, pakistan, china, israel, kazakhstan>have/had nuclear weapons>all have not had their revolutions overthrown by CIA-backed color revolutionsnow guess why Iran is so desperately trying to get a nuclear weaponprotip: it's not to drop on israel, it's to preclude/prevent regime change
>>64227384Well, no, I mean, quite literally from the initial theory paper. It makes assumptions like 1 warhead per population center -- which isn't really how it works.
>>64227388Israel would have preemptively nuked Iran if Trump hadn't agreed to help. That was the message. Iran will never get nukes.
>>64227388>south africa>no nuclear weaponspoint and laugh at the retard
>>64227393>It makes assumptions like 1 warhead per population center -- which isn't really how it works.This is close to what WarPac and NATO war games dropped on most of West and East Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland.The bridges, harbors, train stations, etc tend to be in and near cities, and we know the Soviet methods were erring on the side of more kilotons.So yeah, there wouldn't be some sort of systematic carpet nuking with one bomb per city, but the sheer number ofo nukes will seriously fuck up Eurasia, with most of the fallout and smoke being carried east into the Soviet Union.
>>64227510lol, you retardSouth Africa voluntarily dismantled their last nuclear weapon in 1989, and guess what? Apartheid ended and the regime changed from 90-93de Klerk forfeiting his nuclear stockpile was literally the last gasp of the regimeSouth Africa is perhaps the most salient example of nuclear weapons being hedges against forcible regime change
>>64227132>Actually using nukes is only "worth it" in a nothing-to-lose scenario, and I mean an ACTUAL nothing-to-lose scenario.Honest question to /k/ and may be interpe'd as a political question. Is the human race as a whole getting near to this?
>>64227687it's interesting how you conveniently ignored >>64227369's post
We're more at risk of a "supervolcano" or chain-eruptions causing, among many other problems, a legitimately devastating sun blockage and heavy temp drop than a nuclear winter doing the same.The difference between the former is it WILL happen, again, and we might never know when while the latter is a coin flip of uncertainty.
>>64224800>They haven't been used in war since 1945 where two were used.there have been over 2k detonation since 1945 retard. the world hasn't ended nor will it
>>64224800If you hold a nuke and I hold a nuke, we can talk about the law. If you hold a knife and I hold a knife, we can talk about rules. If you come empty-handed, and I come empty-handed, we can talk about reason. But if you hold a nuke and I only have a knife, then the truth lies in your hand. If you have a nuke and I have nothing, then what you hold in your hands isn’t just a weapon, it’s my life."
>>64227119>No country that had nukes of their own ever gave them up.Slightly off the mark there - South Africa developed them with the assistance of Israel in the 70s and 80s. They did a joint nuclear test in the South West of the Indian Ocean. However, South Africa was obliged to give them up (all of them, and the development technology) to reprieve the crippling sanctions on them that was forcing them to starve to death.SA was a pariah state in the late 80s before they gave up the bomb. They didn't have many to start with though (6+1).
>>64225900For me, it's the square of listen up bitch
>>64224800This is a demoralizion thread, probably by a Russian. The post is entirely too verbose and too light on content to be written by a human being.
The thinking is that MAD constitutes Nash Equilibrium and keeps either side from deploying nukes. If you and I both have nukes, both have the ability to launch them at eachother, AND have second strike capability (you can’t destroy my nukes with your nukes), then it’s in neither or out interests to deploy nukes first, because like you said, it does set off an unstoppable chain of events with both of us getting nuked. If I launch a nuke at you, then really I have nothing else to do but wait around staring at the sky waiting for your nuke to come and blow me up. It’s guaranteed to come.But more than that, there’s been an arms race between adversarial groups since the dawn of man, so the developement of more and more destructive weapons is guaranteed. That’s why nukes exist.
>>64227320You must be too young to remember the predictions made by the Nuclear Winter crowd regarding Saddam's oil well fires in 1991, and how that nothingburger contrasted with the measurable amount of cooling from Mt. Pinatubo, which released more particulates into the stratosphere than many of the Nuclear Winter models suggested would result from a war.
>>64231140>Nuclear Winter crowd regarding Saddam's oil well fireshttps://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-01-15-fi-183-story.htmlthanks for teaching me some history anon
>>64224800And they are working as intended.
>>64224800>What is the point of nuclear weapons?Rather have em than not have em/thread
>>64227687>This is close to what WarPac and NATO war games dropped on most of West and East Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland.No? You wouldn’t do a single warhead per target if you want to achieve an acceptable Pk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqqNyFbhock
>>64227398It will probably do it in the end since these Persian boomers don't seem to understand what is going on, they seem to have even pissed off russia with the things they started in syria and lebanon all to save face.At this point unless some miracle tech advance happens like room temp semiconductor that guarantees decades of economic growth happens i am pretty sure nukes will be used, politicians in euraisa seem to think wars are a good distraction against westernized homo countries but clearly their analysis has been fallin since Israel and Ukraine both chimped out and are acting totally out of any post ww2 parameter with Israel outrigh doing the carthage treatment to the strip and outright gorepostign in Ukraine case.But while Russia seems to understand they fucked up and are just fighting due to a sunk cost fallacy, the Persians don't seem to get it and they may end up Nuked.>>64227510South Africa had some very small nuclear weapons, tough if rumors are true they were trying to cozy up to Israel to get supplies to build the big teller toys.>>64228354They have not been using in the post war in a military sense, even a small M29 Davy Crockett style weapon used in Ukraine by Russia would unleash a series of geopolitical events that would end with the post world war order dying in 15 years max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY
Without nuclear weapons, Russia wouldn't be able to threaten using them over and over again.
>>64227933>Honest question to /k/ and may be interpe'd as a political question. Is the human race as a whole getting near to this?browns will let rip at each other inevitably, nothing of value will be lost
>>64228296>a legitimately devastating sun blockage and heavy temp drop than a nuclear wintenuclear winter is a kgb cold war fake meme propagandised to encourage western nuclear disarmament you are either a kremlin influenced retard or a normie retard. The science was disproved comprehensively when saddam set the well heads on fire
>>64235494The pakijeet, hundu jeet, and chink 3 way bombathon cant come soon enuf
>>64227384>South Africa voluntarily dismantled their last nuclear weapon in 1989nuclear winter is also horsehit for simpletons and kremlin shills, which are you?
>>64227384>But you can bet your ass that it would fuck up Europe and most of western Asia for at least a year.tards are always most confident when they are utterly wrong
>>64235520could be some brown fucker in dagestan, the pakis, the jeets but it will be browns that let rip at each other, it is the low iq would be strongman move thus all the coups and poverty
