Airliners.net

Interesting Ted talks about the effect of nuclear war and thus the absurdity of nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI

Even a small-scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India will result in massive starvation and thus the death of hundreds of millions of people.

Dutchy wrote:

Even a small-scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India will result in massive starvation and thus the death of hundreds of millions of people.

A small scale nuclear war ANYWHERE will have the same result sir - massive starvation & millions dead! Ofcourse in the context of the subcontinent, with its densely populated urban centers and poor infrastructure, the casualties will be multiplied 100 fold.

I think the biggest failure of the West has been not just to cut their own nuclear arsenals but also to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to 3rd world countries like India & Pakistan.

The West, America in particular, has failed to use its leadership position to enforce the non-proliferation regime and thus encouraged the spread of such weapons. Other countries like France & Canada, have looked the other way and even encouraged the proliferation of weapons. India's first nuclear test was conducted with plutonium extracted from a reactor provided by the Canadians. Much of India's nuclear technology post the "Smiling Buddha" is lifted from the French - whether it was stolen or the result of a "wink-and-nudge" approach is open to speculation. It would have been impossible for India to ride out the sanctions imposed after the 1998 tests, if it weren't for the help provided by France.

The P5 need to unite behind the NP agenda to free the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons. They have the economic might to whip irresponsible regimes back in line with international opinion.

The West needs to do more not just to prevent the spread of nuclear technology to other countries, but also to scale back and eliminate the nuclear arsenals outside the P5. It is still not too late.

BawliBooch wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Even a small-scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India will result in massive starvation and thus the death of hundreds of millions of people.

A small scale nuclear war ANYWHERE will have the same result sir - massive starvation & millions dead! Ofcourse in the context of the subcontinent, with its densely populated urban centers and poor infrastructure, the casualties will be multiplied 100 fold.

I think the biggest failure of the West has been not just to cut their own nuclear arsenals but also to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to 3rd world countries like India & Pakistan.

The West, America in particular, has failed to use its leadership position to enforce the non-proliferation regime and thus encouraged the spread of such weapons. Other countries like France & Canada, have looked the other way and even encouraged the proliferation of weapons. India's first nuclear test was conducted with plutonium extracted from a reactor provided by the Canadians. Much of India's nuclear technology post the "Smiling Buddha" is lifted from the French - whether it was stolen or the result of a "wink-and-nudge" approach is open to speculation. It would have been impossible for India to ride out the sanctions imposed after the 1998 tests, if it weren't for the help provided by France.

The P5 need to unite behind the NP agenda to free the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons. They have the economic might to whip irresponsible regimes back in line with international opinion.

The West needs to do more not just to prevent the spread of nuclear technology to other countries, but also to scale back and eliminate the nuclear arsenals outside the P5. It is still not too late.

proliferation is the only thing that stopped/stops the US from taking all other nations hostage.
Very much IMHO nobody beyond the US 3 letter orgs really thinks about placing and activating a nuke "elsewhere" just for having fun with some hate.

The assumed power loss of the SU/RF and the resultant behaviour change on the US side:
Ignoring trashing treaties and in general behaving like the lord of the manor when serfdom was still in existance ...

Mutially acceptable politics needs power balance. Even if that balance is a thing like last stand family atomics ( cue Dune ).
pressuring some party into a corner "because we can" must bear heavy consequences.

"They have the economic might to whip irresponsible regimes back in line with international opinion."
synonymous:
"to put the fox in charge of the henhouse"
and:
quis custos custodiet.

BawliBooch wrote:

[The West, America in particular, has failed

Not to mention that there is this thing called the NPT, that has been ratified by the US, UK, FR, CN & RU that contains an Article VI, a legally binding requirement to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament. Haven´t seen much of that, and in fact they work very hard to sabotage any effort to ban nuclear weapons for good.

They love using the NPT to dump on countries with nuclear ambitions, but they themselves are the biggest violators of them all.

They are so lucky that no one ever seems to reads that damn thing.....

best regards
Thomas

Best option is SLBM as there is no reason for first strike.

Tactical weapons worry me most as they can be viewed as an extension of conventional warfare. Keeping track of theirs and control of our dispersed weapons are also an issue,

Use of hotlines are also key.

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting Ted talks about the effect of nuclear war and thus the absurdity of nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI

Even a small-scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India will result in massive starvation and thus the death of hundreds of millions of people.

Stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to decimate the entire population of Earth tenfold, and then point them at each other leaving the risk of global annihilation is indeed somewhat absurd.

On the other hand, quite ironically, these weapons of mass destruction ensured an unlikely peace between the two major superpowers of America and the USSR during the Cold War. Had it not been for all those megatons being pointed east and west, Europe would most likely have been the theatre of a third round of industrialised mass warfare.

fallap wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting Ted talks about the effect of nuclear war and thus the absurdity of nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI

Even a small-scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India will result in massive starvation and thus the death of hundreds of millions of people.

Stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to decimate the entire population of Earth tenfold, and then point them at each other leaving the risk of global annihilation is indeed somewhat absurd.

On the other hand, quite ironically, these weapons of mass destruction ensured an unlikely peace between the two major superpowers of America and the USSR during the Cold War. Had it not been for all those megatons being pointed east and west, Europe would most likely have been the theatre of a third round of industrialised mass warfare.

Sure, but in the current world, there is more danger that a cold war is going to heat-up and even a small conflict will lead to a global impact.

Dutchy wrote:

fallap wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting Ted talks about the effect of nuclear war and thus the absurdity of nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI

Even a small-scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India will result in massive starvation and thus the death of hundreds of millions of people.

Stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to decimate the entire population of Earth tenfold, and then point them at each other leaving the risk of global annihilation is indeed somewhat absurd.

On the other hand, quite ironically, these weapons of mass destruction ensured an unlikely peace between the two major superpowers of America and the USSR during the Cold War. Had it not been for all those megatons being pointed east and west, Europe would most likely have been the theatre of a third round of industrialised mass warfare.

Sure, but in the current world, there is more danger that a cold war is going to heat-up and even a small conflict will lead to a global impact.

Possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the only likely agent to detonate a nuclear warhead, is a terrorist organisation etc. No nuclear-armed state, not even North Korea, will dare pressing the red button.

fallap wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

fallap wrote:

Stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to decimate the entire population of Earth tenfold, and then point them at each other leaving the risk of global annihilation is indeed somewhat absurd.

On the other hand, quite ironically, these weapons of mass destruction ensured an unlikely peace between the two major superpowers of America and the USSR during the Cold War. Had it not been for all those megatons being pointed east and west, Europe would most likely have been the theatre of a third round of industrialised mass warfare.

Sure, but in the current world, there is more danger that a cold war is going to heat-up and even a small conflict will lead to a global impact.

Possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the only likely agent to detonate a nuclear warhead, is a terrorist organisation etc. No nuclear-armed state, not even North Korea, will dare pressing the red button.

I consider NK to be one of the least likely to do it, they have nothing to gain to do it, they will be whipped out. As of a terrorist organization, well maybe, but they can't make them themselves, so they need to obtain it from somewhere.

fallap wrote:

On the other hand, quite ironically, these weapons of mass destruction ensured an unlikely peace between the two major superpowers of America and the USSR during the Cold War. Had it not been for all those megatons being pointed east and west, Europe would most likely have been the theatre of a third round of industrialised mass warfare.

That is true. However back then, Nuclear weapons were held by a limited group of nations with stable govt's and thus the status-quo was assured to a greater degree. The nuclear club has now grown to include countries in unstable regions with dangerously radicalised regimes. Easier to break the peace. Do India, Pakistan or Iran have the same degree of command & control over their nuclear arsenals as say the USA or Russia? There is a real danger there of things getting out of control. Imagine a Major in Sukkur, radicalised by the years spent in a madarssa, heading a small detachment with access to a nuclear weapon. Would the Pakistani leadership (itself propped up by radical Islamic parties) be able to exert the same level of control when one such unit goes rogue? Ditto in neighboring India where radicalised Hindutva crazies now hold power.

The kind of relative peace & stability we had in the Cold War days is untenable now as nuclear weapons have proliferated beyond the P5. Isnt that too high a price to pay?

fallap wrote:

Possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the only likely agent to detonate a nuclear warhead, is a terrorist organisation etc. No nuclear-armed state, not even North Korea, will dare pressing the red button.

Of all the countries with Nuclear Weapons, North Korea is the least likely to actually use a nuclear weapon. Their leadership is not crazy. They know very well the consequences of using the weapons.

I actually make toasts the the nuclear bomb. It's very existence is the reason why it'll never be used again.

fallap wrote:

Possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the only likely agent to detonate a nuclear warhead, is a terrorist organisation etc. No nuclear-armed state, not even North Korea, will dare pressing the red button.

Considering that there pretty much is no fissile material on this planet that can´t be identified down to when, where and in which part of the reactor it was made, it is highly unlikely that anyone will get enough material to build a fission bomb without some country announcing the theft of that material long, long time before that weapon is deploy able. I am pretty sure no nation would particular care how exactly the bomb got on its soil and who took it there, whoever made that Plutonium/Uranium will be flattened.

And as far as we know there where few large thefts of fissile material and we are reasonably sure all of that is in Israels stockpile.

Small dirty bomb, yes.... but a real nuke? Nope.

The only nations that we have to be afraid of are those with enough nukes to make absolutely certain that there will no WMD comeback if they ever decide to use one.

best regards
Thomas

bennett123 wrote:

Best option is SLBM as there is no reason for first strike.

Only if they're kept at sea. One of the consequences of the Walker scandal is that the Soviets (now Russians) and later the Chinese have not tried a blue water SLBM force as they know the US will trail every missile boat, ready to destroy it before a launch occurs. Instead, they keep them parked inside territorial waters where US attack subs can be kept at bay. That is a big risk, because you don't have to be anywhere near close with a nuclear bomb so all the US has to do is have a rough idea where the subs are.

Because of the costs, Russia doesn't even do regular patrols with their ballistic submarines.

The real deterrent on the Russian and Chinese side is truck mounted missiles. Their sheer numbers make it too hard to account for them all.

bennett123 wrote:

Tactical weapons worry me most as they can be viewed as an extension of conventional warfare. Keeping track of theirs and control of our dispersed weapons are also an issue,

Me too. Fortunately the US and Russia massively disarmed because they knew that tactical nukes don't matter. You either have a conventional war or nuclear annihilation, with no in between.

bennett123 wrote:

Use of hotlines are also key.

Good and bad.... hold on while I talk to Putin and Li Keqiang first before we wipe N. Korea off the map...

tommy1808 wrote:

Considering that there pretty much is no fissile material on this planet that can´t be identified down to when, where and in which part of the reactor it was made, it is highly unlikely that anyone will get enough material to build a fission bomb without some country announcing the theft of that material long, long time before that weapon is deploy able. I am pretty sure no nation would particular care how exactly the bomb got on its soil and who took it there, whoever made that Plutonium/Uranium will be flattened.

Two fallacies with that idea.

First off, we know that the former Soviet Union didn't keep that kind of records. They're unable to account for massive amounts of fissile material.

Secondly, no one is going to go after a large state who lost material. What, someone is going to start all out nuclear war with Russia? Ever heard the phrase "cut off your nose to spite your face"?

MatthewDB wrote:

First off, we know that the former Soviet Union didn't keep that kind of records.

The USSR kept those records the same way any other country did. Simple quality control requires that. Different reactor types also have different isotope signatures, so even with Russia treating such information as state secret, you can still eliminate all Russian reactors outside Russia quite quickly.

They're unable to account for massive amounts of fissile material.

BS. Logically that is already BS, because that is assuming someone is sitting on fissile material, even for decades, without using it for anything. Considering how Russia recovered much, maybe not all, but much of the material they´ve lost, keeping it in storage seems to be fairly stupid.
I´d suggest you read the Annual Report to Congress on the Safety and Security of Russian Nuclear Facilities and Military Forces, there is no indication that they have lost a weapon or any meaningful amount of material enriched enough to build a weapon, not even close.
The US on the other hand has lost 300+ Kg of HEU and Europe has managed to lose 200 tonnes of yellow cake..... https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/heu/

Secondly, no one is going to go after a large state who lost material. What, someone is going to start all out nuclear war with Russia? Ever heard the phrase "cut off your nose to spite your face"?

Which is exactly what i said would happen. Russia is one of the countries that could supply the material, but apparently has no intention doing so. Probably because it would be just as likely used against them as anybody else.

I am probably one of the people on this forum least likely to defend Russia on anything, but that notion is flat out ridiculous.

best regards
Thomas

MatthewDB wrote:

Only if they're kept at sea. One of the consequences of the Walker scandal is that the Soviets (now Russians) and later the Chinese have not tried a blue water SLBM force as they know the US will trail every missile boat, ready to destroy it before a launch occurs. Instead, they keep them parked inside territorial waters where US attack subs can be kept at bay. That is a big risk, because you don't have to be anywhere near close with a nuclear bomb so all the US has to do is have a rough idea where the subs are.

Your comment about parked inside territorial waters, while on paper it might be true, in actual fact, I wouldn't be so sure. In addition, I don't think a warhead is going to be used in trying to take out a boomer, if that what you are trying to get across. I think you will find they will be dealt with by an attack sub. Much more efficient and you are ensured of a kill.

fallap wrote:

Possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the only likely agent to detonate a nuclear warhead, is a terrorist organisation etc. No nuclear-armed state, not even North Korea, will dare pressing the red button.

No "real" terrorist organization that is unconnected to the CIA or similar will go for it either.
Terrorist acts are a bargaining tool. Nuking or poisoning a major population center
just won't do in that respect.

All the over the top attacks in the last 2 decades invariably exposed instrumental
involvement of western intelligence organizations ( again over proportionally US located ).