Discussion Does a nuclear deterrent actually deter

Muse · Thursday at 9:26 AM

fskimospy said:
I hadn’t heard that. Why would it not be possible to fire Trident missiles without US cooperation? I get that they are built here but the UK already has plenty of them and presumably also has at least some spare parts. It doesn’t rely on GPS so the US couldn’t disable it that way either.

Unlike Ukraine where long term supplies are necessary, nuclear wars should be very short - at least the nuclear part, haha, so you only really need to be able to fire them once.

Correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK the only deployment so far was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuke capable nations have so far cooperated in keeping it that way. NK and Iran have been viewed as potential violators. NK is evidently off the leash but so far doesn't appear to be slobbering at the mouth to find out what happens to them if they nuke anybody. Question is, can Iran be trusted? US and Israel (particularly the latter) have their doubts.

Now, I think there's potential (and actual) use of fissionable material or at least radioactive in modern warfare other than atomic or hydrogen bombs, but I don't know much about it.

Edit, AI generated:

Beyond traditional nuclear bombs, fissionable or radioactive materials have potential and actual uses in modern warfare, though often with significant ethical and environmental implications
.

Here are some examples:
1. Depleted Uranium (DU) in Munitions and Armor:

DU is a byproduct of uranium enrichment and is less radioactive than natural uranium.
Its high density makes it effective for penetrating armor and is used in ammunition and tank armor.
DU munitions have been used in various conflicts since the 1990s, including the Gulf War, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
However, its use is controversial due to potential environmental and health risks from the dispersed radioactive dust and potential groundwater and soil contamination.

2. Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) for Power:

RTGs convert heat from radioactive decay into electricity.
They are used for long-term power generation in remote locations or space vehicles where other power sources are impractical.
The military has used RTGs to power remote sensing stations and other Arctic equipment.
While RTGs are not useful for a nuclear weapon, they could theoretically be used in a "dirty bomb," though this is not a genuine nuclear weapon and is mainly intended to spread fear and panic.

3. Radioactive Isotopes in Sensors:

Scientists are testing the use of radioisotopes like tritium to power battlefield sensors, enabling them to last for many years.
This offers advantages over conventional batteries, which have limited lifespans.
Such sensors can provide long-term awareness of activities in isolated areas.

4. Other Potential or Less Common Uses:

Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDDs or "Dirty Bombs"): These combine conventional explosives with radioactive material to contaminate an area and cause fear and disruption, rather than a large-scale nuclear explosion.
Radiological Weapons: These are devices intended to spread radioactive material to cause harm. Delivery methods could include aerial dispersal or missile warheads.
Tracer rounds: While not directly utilizing radioactivity for weaponization, some tracer rounds might have used materials with minimal radioactive properties in the past, though modern tracers primarily use pyrotechnic compounds.

Important Note: It's crucial to differentiate between actual military uses and the development or testing of radiological weapons. While some nations have explored or tested radiological weapons, their practical use beyond specific incidents (like the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko) is limited and highly controversial due to the humanitarian and environmental consequences.

fskimospy · Thursday at 9:29 AM

Muse said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK the only deployment so far was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuke capable nations have so far cooperated in keeping it that way. NK and Iran have been viewed as potential violators. NK is evidently off the leash but so far doesn't appear to be slobbering at the mouth to find out what happens to them if they nuke anybody. Question is, can Iran be trusted? US and Israel (particularly the latter) have their doubts.

Now, there's potential use of fissionable material or at least radioactive in warfare other than atomic or hydrogen bombs, but I don't know much about it.

Trusted in what way? It’s not like they are going to start lobbing nukes for no reason.

The reason the US and Israel don’t want Iran to have nukes is because it alters the balance of power in the region where Iran no longer needs to fear external overthrow. I totally get why the US and Israel don’t want that but that’s the reason, not that we think they are crazy people bent on Armageddon.

fskimospy · Thursday at 9:32 AM

K1052 said:
Defies belief. Once you roll tanks on Moscow you've made your bed so you better follow through.

Even more insane was that he continued to hang out in and around Russia. I would say if you DO stop the only other rational course of action is to use all of those like 30 disguises he had and find the deepest, darkest hole on earth to go hide in.

What you definitely do NOT do is take chartered flights out of Moscow, lol.

Muse · Thursday at 9:51 AM

fskimospy said:
Trusted in what way? It’s not like they are going to start lobbing nukes for no reason.

The reason the US and Israel don’t want Iran to have nukes is because it alters the balance of power in the region where Iran no longer needs to fear external overthrow. I totally get why the US and Israel don’t want that but that’s the reason, not that we think they are crazy people bent on Armageddon.

OK, yeah. It's that encouraging regime change becomes more difficult if Iran has nukes. They are right now a terrorist nation in that they supply and instruct regional terrorist organizations.

pmv · Thursday at 9:54 AM

Muse said:
Peter Zeihan likely is overconfident of his analysis at times but I have no concept at all that he's not to be taken seriously.

I really can't judge. He sounds very plausible (and interesting) but I have no idea how to evaluate him, and am instinctively suspicious of anyone whose main platform appears to be YouTube (except for Pilot Mentour and the Bovington Tank museum!).

Muse · Thursday at 9:58 AM

pmv said:
I really can't judge. He sounds very plausible (and interesting) but I have no idea how to evaluate him, and am instinctively suspicious of anyone whose main platform appears to be YouTube (except for Pilot Mentour and the Bovington Tank museum!).

And you trust people here? Why???

Brovane · Thursday at 10:03 AM

fskimospy said:
Trusted in what way? It’s not like they are going to start lobbing nukes for no reason.

The reason the US and Israel don’t want Iran to have nukes is because it alters the balance of power in the region where Iran no longer needs to fear external overthrow. I totally get why the US and Israel don’t want that but that’s the reason, not that we think they are crazy people bent on Armageddon.

I have seen some information that if Iran got nukes that Saudi Arabia would also push to get nukes.

fskimospy · Thursday at 10:07 AM

Brovane said:
I have seen some information that if Iran got nukes that Saudi Arabia would also push to get nukes.

Yes, there could be multiple problematic consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons but it's very, very unlikely one of those is some sort of offensive use on their part.

BonzaiDuck · Thursday at 10:11 AM

Given the robust fact that there is a psychologically disordered criminal in the White House, and that the psychological disorder is quite common in serial murderers, I don't feel safe. When I was a child and Stalin was still alive, everyone was frightened of prospects for a nuclear war. As time went forward and world politics slowly changed, the risk was a fact of life, but we didn't let it ruin our day.

Adding to our own Monster Leader, North Korea's 3rd generation strongman won't even follow the recommendations of its Chinese neighbor regime, continuously demonstrating its rogue nature. But Little Kim has been more or less quiet since the time that Obama sent two B-2 bombers to DPRK"s border from Whiteman AFB -- as a "message".

MAD or mutually assured destruction has always been an assumption in ongoing world conflict. I probably can't comment much further, but this book was published before 1972 when I was finishing graduate school and it held a peripheral interest to my scholarly pursuits:

Herman Kahn, "On Thermonuclear War", 1960 1st Edition (?)

I had found the hardbound edition in the library of my UC campus, and it should be available in just about any public library of a modest-sized city.

It's hard to "wrap my brain around" the fact that this book is about 65 years old. And only mildly comforting that I feel pretty healthy on this Thursday morning, or that I can still remember the titles and authors of books I perused 53 years ago. Well -- gotta take my meds with those beet-root extract pills for my kidneys! Gonna try out those veggie sausage patties for breakfast! [Old age sucks . . .]

[DHT]Osiris · Thursday at 11:04 AM

fskimospy said:
Yes, there could be multiple problematic consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons but it's very, very unlikely one of those is some sort of offensive use on their part.

The primary concern most modern countries have with other countries obtaining nuclear weapons is the inability to conquer, exploit, or control them.

BonzaiDuck · Thursday at 11:21 AM

[DHT]Osiris said:
The primary concern most modern countries have with other countries obtaining nuclear weapons is the inability to conquer, exploit, or control them.

Too bad, then, that Ukraine had given up its share of USSR nukes, but then it would've complicated things equally and otherwise.

nakedfrog · Thursday at 11:42 AM

mikeymikec said:
IMO it reads like a poor work of fiction* and fails to factor in the somewhat larger picture, which in short is that Putin's position internally can only have been weakened by this conflict just as he has weakened Russia.

* - I'm not saying it's wrong/impossible btw, just expressing my scepticism.

Do consider how many people we have fawning over Trump (clearly a fucking moron who does not have the US' best interests in mind) in a country with a "free press", and then consider what it might be like in a country where they arrest journalists. Not to say they have 100% control of the narrative, but seems like that might help maintain a better position internally.

mikeymikec · Thursday at 12:33 PM

nakedfrog said:
Do consider how many people we have fawning over Trump (clearly a fucking moron who does not have the US' best interests in mind) in a country with a "free press", and then consider what it might be like in a country where they arrest journalists. Not to say they have 100% control of the narrative, but seems like that might help maintain a better position internally.

My point was more about Russian government insiders. I can't imagine that how Putin's fucking of the economy sideways comes across well to those with power and access to more inside info.

K1052 said:
It's a dictatorship and the Russians at large have no taste for overthrowing him even as he sends them to die by the bushel. He consolidated control long ago. The most likely thing to happen is that another strongman does him in while his security services largely stand by and watch.

IMO you're contradicting yourself here. IMO a leader can effectively maintain control in one way: Pandering to moderates. Once they stray from that script, control is an illusion that is quickly corrected by say a bullet. As you said, Putin's security detail being paid to look the other way is not a feat that takes a great deal of effort/resources.

K1052 · Thursday at 12:51 PM

mikeymikec said:
IMO you're contradicting yourself here. IMO a leader can effectively maintain control in one way: Pandering to moderates. Once they stray from that script, control is an illusion that is quickly corrected by say a bullet. As you said, Putin's security detail being paid to look the other way is not a feat that takes a great deal of effort/resources.

Russia is a dictatorship where Putin has fully consolidated power over many years. Any "moderates" who might whine either go into exile, end up in the gulag, or have a short trip from a 4th floor window accidentally. When Prigozhin made his move the Russian army largely just stood by and watched while he moved on the capital, instead of mounting a concerted defense. One strongman confronting another for control seemed to be viewed as an acceptable event.

nakedfrog · Thursday at 1:02 PM

mikeymikec said:
My point was more about Russian government insiders. I can't imagine that how Putin's fucking of the economy sideways comes across well to those with power and access to more inside info.

In an environment where people tend to fall out of windows, and people are looking to get one over on the other, it seems like a difficult prospect to put that to any sort of action without exposing oneself to a bit of risk.

dainthomas · Thursday at 1:16 PM

fskimospy said:
The whole Prigozhin thing is still baffling to me as to why he stopped. He seemed to think that Putin would let things go after that and…like…what.

I was excited for about five minutes when he was running for Moscow and the army was just kinda letting him. Don't get me wrong, he was nearly as terrible as putin, but I was kinda hoping for some protracted civil conflict that would cause russia to abandon its attack on ukraine. And as a bonus maybe putin would get promoted to chief window integrity tester.

I don't think I ever heard a good reason why he just stopped. Obviously once you commit to an action like that, the only options are success or death.

GodisanAtheist · Thursday at 2:24 PM

Back to the OP:

Yes, by all accounts nuclear weapons are about as good of a deterrent as a country can have.

Pakistan and North Korea are about the best examples as you are going to get. Conventionally weak militaries, bordered by a much more advanced and powerful hostile country, have Nukes, get left alone when when being the provocateur.

A lot of the narrative around nukes is about MAD and first strikes between (presumed) superpowers, but really the primary use case for a lot of smaller nations would be nuking an invading enemy army formation or forward operating base within their own territory rather than "MAD" in the sense of ICBMs raining hell on enemy capitals and industrial centers.

In those circumstances (nuking an invading enemy army) MAD kinda goes out the window. The invader has a tough time justifying nukes in response (they are invading conventionally for a reason) and the international community might get into a bit of a tizzy but there isn't going to be some sort of global nuclear exchange if someone detonates a nuke on their own territory as a defensive measure.

hal2kilo · Thursday at 3:19 PM

fskimospy said:
I hadn’t heard that. Why would it not be possible to fire Trident missiles without US cooperation? I get that they are built here but the UK already has plenty of them and presumably also has at least some spare parts. It doesn’t rely on GPS so the US couldn’t disable it that way either.

Unlike Ukraine where long term supplies are necessary, nuclear wars should be very short - at least the nuclear part, haha, so you only really need to be able to fire them once.

They are not restricted, per the Polaris agreement. I did a couple of Follow On Technical Proficiency Evaluations (FTPE) at HMNB Clyde at Faslane in support of our DRSS Data Recording Subsystem on the Vanguards which was identical to the US system except for not looking at 8 more tubes which required a UK software version to account for that.
Also, the UK uses their own upper stage, and ordinance.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/114we12.htm

biostud · Friday at 12:20 AM

What would the answer be if Ayatollahs decided to launch 1-4 nukes against Israel?

Would Israel use their nukes?

Or would we do a Afghanistan/Iraq invasion style war?

igor_kavinski · Friday at 3:06 AM

biostud said:
What would the answer be if Ayatollahs decided to launch 1-4 nukes against Israel?

Not a conventional nuke. Maybe a neutron bomb. But once any country does that, it's open season on them from any other country. No one wants to live in a state of constant fear. I would bet more on NK nuking South Korea than Iran doing anything stupid. Remember, it was israel that started this war. And Hamas is funded by netantard. They did what they were paid to do and now that bastard is pretending it's the fault of innocent civilians. There's an active genocide going on there as we speak. The entire world will have to pay one way or the other for idly standing by while war crimes happen. Don't be surprised if israel creates a brand new excuse to invade its neighbors once it has wiped everyone out in Gaza.

biostud · Friday at 6:21 AM

igor_kavinski said:
Not a conventional nuke. Maybe a neutron bomb. But once any country does that, it's open season on them from any other country. No one wants to live in a state of constant fear. I would bet more on NK nuking South Korea than Iran doing anything stupid. Remember, it was israel that started this war. And Hamas is funded by netantard. They did what they were paid to do and now that bastard is pretending it's the fault of innocent civilians. There's an active genocide going on there as we speak. The entire world will have to pay one way or the other for idly standing by while war crimes happen. Don't be surprised if israel creates a brand new excuse to invade its neighbors once it has wiped everyone out in Gaza.

The question is also, what red line to cross for Iran to launch its nukes? Hence what is it deterring?

Oric · Friday at 7:11 AM

All politi

mikeymikec said:
Obligatory 'Yes, Minister' clip, which I've always felt to be part of my opinion about the nuclear deterrent:

All political questions are answered in "Yes Minister".

igor_kavinski · Friday at 7:43 AM

biostud said:
The question is also, what red line to cross for Iran to launch its nukes? Hence what is it deterring?

The red line is already kinda crossed making it extremely urgent for them to acquire a nuke now. The real troublemaker in the region is israel. Always has been. If netantard thought that Iran was a threat before, he turned them into his staunchest enemy forever. Now israel can never be safe unless it nukes Iran first. Both dumbasses (netantard and trump) had zero idea of what they were starting. It's not just Iran now. How many other countries in the region are now seriously considering getting nukes to avoid the threat of suddenly having US warplanes over their skies?

pmv · Friday at 8:39 AM

fskimospy said:
I hadn’t heard that. Why would it not be possible to fire Trident missiles without US cooperation? I get that they are built here but the UK already has plenty of them and presumably also has at least some spare parts. It doesn’t rely on GPS so the US couldn’t disable it that way either.

Unlike Ukraine where long term supplies are necessary, nuclear wars should be very short - at least the nuclear part, haha, so you only really need to be able to fire them once.

I've never figured out exactly what the set-up is - I seem to keep encountering completely contradictory descriptions of it. Even heard claims of the missiles being technically the property of Lockheed Martin (which brings to mind visions of Milo Minderbinder, leasing them to the Russians after they were launched, if the Ruskies made a higher bid).

pmv · Friday at 8:47 AM

fskimospy said:
Yes, there could be multiple problematic consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons but it's very, very unlikely one of those is some sort of offensive use on their part.

The one thing I'd fear, is the possibility of Iran suffering a collapse into internal chaos, and some of the devices ending up with 'non state actors'. I trust even the most despotic state to behave rationally more than I do the various crazy cults and terror outfits. ISIS might have constituted a tricky borderline case, admittedly. Come to think of it that's already an anxiety with Pakistan, though, so maybe that ship has sailed.

Discussion Does a nuclear deterrent actually deter

Lifer

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

No Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

No Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Senior member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer