Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[VonDerTann]

You’re assuming the Chinese care about fallout.

So I guess in Hume-world, we’ll just…scrap our nuclear missiles, and Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, etc., would never ever launch a nuclear missile, at all, just because…they’re afraid of fallout?

What makes you think they’d care?

 

[vz71]

I think the development of countermeasures has rendered the era of the ICBM effectively over since the late 80s.

Only of some army has the ability to Target and shoot down several rockets at the same time.

There are very few nation’s on Earth that have that capacity.

 

[Hume]

A nuke that flies so low it can’t be targeted is a nuke that is substantially limited by the amount of fuel it can carry. Either payload or range suffers. It’s no ICBM.

 

[VonDerTann]

False. Russia has such missiles. They can hit the US west coast.

 

[Hume]

They’ve been trying to prevent revolution since the 50s.

Babies drinking radioactive water will produce enough dissidents that they simply couldn’t stop them.

 

[JimG]

It may well be that no one wins a nuclear war. But unless every nuclear nation gets rid of its nukes, someone could win a nuclear blackmail.

 

[AdamP88]

The reality of world-wide conflagration which would occur is not to be ignored.

I think this is a key issue when discussing the morality of using modern nuclear weapons. The absolute devastation that would occur throughout the world as a result of a nuclear war would affect every nation, not just the warring parties. So the question is, does any nation have a moral right to inflict that suffering on the world. Just talking about this topic reminds me of the book Swan Song by Robert McCammon.

 

[VonDerTann]

What does that mean? That China loves us enough, and fears fallout in the drinking water, that they would never, never, never launch one little nuclear missile at us?

 

[Hume]

If fired from just across from Alaska and that’s only a maybe.

Russia’s economy is the same size as Australia’s. Their capability isn’t what they say it is. They still fly bombers that saw action in the 60s, for Pete’s sake.

 

[VonDerTann]

Like it or not, mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for nearly 70 years.

 

[PetraG]

But does that mean we have to suffer genocide rather than use nuclear weapons? Israel, for example, has contingencies for using nuclear weapons against a conventional attack because they have legitimate reason to believe that such an invasion has the object not of conquering territory but of exterminating their people.

In other words, having them as a deterrent is necessary because of the nations that have them who are definitely not moral in their war theories. There is unfortunately some truth in that thinking.

I can actually think of a legitimate use of a very large nuke. It would take a 1 megaton nuclear warhead set for a groundburst and dead on target, to take out any one pf the hardened and dispersed silos located in the northern U.S. That would be a legitimate military target in a sparsely populated area. The same would apply to similar targets in Russia, China, or North Korea.

OK. That could be a legitimate use.

A weapon that you will never use under any circumstances is not a deterrent; it’s just a liability.

If your opponents believe you will never use it, it isn’t a deterrent even if you would.

A major naval or air force base.

450 kt? That’s pretty major.

Have you considered a well placed large blast can disable permanently electronics over several hundred miles… without taking a single life?

Again–the 450 kt bomb would be used for that? That’s no deaths, not even cancer deaths? I have a hard time buying that.

 

[VonDerTann]

The Russian nuclear delivery systems are being updated. Putin vowed a few years ago to update 70% of Russia’s delivery systems by 2020. Underestimate Vlad at your own risk. Russian and Chinese systems are uniformly newer than US systems.

 

[Hume]

No, in two specific occasions it was dumb luck. We’ve been within a hairs breadth of nuclear war twice when some idiot tried to fire one and thank god another person involved refused.

Eventually dumb luck runs out.

 

[Hume]

And if these systems destroy us, the fallout will end civilization in the northern hemisphere and cripple civilization in the southern.

 

[PetraG]

Much different today Russian warhead holds up to 10 hydrogen bombs and apparently it can take out a country the size of France with one war head if not intercepted - Americans have a similar set-up and who knows what other countries have. If these fly its all over.

Yeah, that sounds like not just the end of civilization but the end of the Era of the Mammals. Yikes.

 

[VonDerTann]

Ah, so now your argument is changing. It had been “no one will attack us.” Now it’s turning into “prevent an accident.”

–Even though no such accident has ever happened. Sorry, your logic escapes me.

 

[Hume]

No, I’m referring again to my earlier statement that a decapitation strike would irradiate the entire northern hemisphere.

You already forget? Just a few lines up.

 

[VonDerTann]

But a mere handful would be all it would take to wipe out the USA - and many would be tempted to do it, were there no credible threat of reprisal.

 

[VonDerTann]

Prove it, please.

 

[Hume]

Handful?

That’s some good chiba you’re smoking.

We’ve installations all over the US and all over the world.

Care if I have a puff?