Is nuclear war inevitable?

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Perry Mason in da house!

(And correct as usual)

It’s hearsay if they’re not here to say it!

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I thought that this thread needed an update with Ukraine/Russia and Palestine/Isreal wars going on. I was interested in reading about the latest money being given to the Ukrainians for missile defence systems and the success of the Israelis in combating the Iranian missiles/drones. If these missile systems are so successful does that make nuclear weapon use less likely as they are more likely to be shot down? Should we now be spending our time and money on developing these effective ‘missile domes’ than nuclear submarine ‘deterrents’? It would certainly save us a lot of money.

One thing is certain that the developments in the atomic bomb has virtually ended world wars thankfully. The closest have ever come was the Cuba crisis and, thankfully, the Russians backed off. Russia chose to attack Ukraine because they have no nuclear deterrent and they are not part of NATO. Is this thinking now outdated if anti-missile ‘shields’ are so effective? Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

My thoughts are that we do not and we should spend our time and money on developing a much cheaper method of deterrence.

 

[Blue Maverick]

I thought that this thread needed an update with Ukraine/Russia and Palestine/Isreal wars going on. I was interested in reading about the latest money being given to the Ukrainians for missile defence systems and the success of the Israelis in combating the Iranian missiles/drones. If these missile systems are so successful does that make nuclear weapon use less likely as they are more likely to be shot down? Should we now be spending our time and money on developing these effective ‘missile domes’ than nuclear submarine ‘deterrents’? It would certainly save us a lot of money.

One thing is certain that the developments in the atomic bomb has virtually ended world wars thankfully. The closest have ever come was the Cuba crisis and, thankfully, the Russians backed off. Russia chose to attack Ukraine because they have no nuclear deterrent and they are not part of NATO. Is this thinking now outdated if anti-missile ‘shields’ are so effective? Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

My thoughts are that we do not and we should spend our time and money on developing a much cheaper method of deterrence.

I’m watching a series on Netflix and the history of the bomb its development, Cold War etc. the trouble is there are that many that even one getting through would be utterly devastating, a thermonuclear bomb is around 15-20000 kilotons, Hiroshima’s was 15. It takes 26-30 mins for an icbm to reach its target, but submarines off a coast around 6-10 depending on how close to the coast the target is. These missiles would need shooting down basically in space on their second stage, possibly by satellites, there are 5500 Russian warheads and 1700 are ready to go now, it would be almost impossible to shoot them all down.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I’m watching a series on Netflix and the history of the bomb its development, Cold War etc. the trouble is there are that many that even one getting through would be utterly devastating, a thermonuclear bomb is around 15-20000 kilotons, Hiroshima’s was 15. It takes 26-30 mins for an icbm to reach its target, but submarines off a coast around 6-10 depending on how close to the coast the target is. These missiles would need shooting down basically in space on their second stage, possibly by satellites, there are 5500 Russian warheads and 1700 are ready to go now, it would be almost impossible to shoot them all down.

Very true but I don’t think it is beyond the realms of possibility that within a very short space of time that systems could track and shoot down these missiles in time. The Israelis did a very good job of shooting down 300 missiles and drones.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Very true but I don’t think it is beyond the realms of possibility that within a very short space of time that systems could track and shoot down these missiles in time. The Israelis did a very good job of shooting down 300 missiles and drones.

I know the U.K. are at the forefront of laser technology to do just that but I think it’s a good 20 years until it’s viable, I hope we can make it until then, just have a look at how many nukes the North Koreans have!

 

[crooky]

Have a read of this article. The attack was telegraphed weeks before it took place. It was basically a show of force from Iran but without the risk of an escalation to a bigger war as they knew the missiles would be shot down. The Israeli defences were ready and waiting for such an attack. A surprise attack would be a different kettle of fish.

The night Iran’s missile spectacle rattled Israel

Tehran’s ‘Operation True Promise’ demonstrated aerial might that was visible to all, but fatal to none

www.ft.com

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I thought that this thread needed an update with Ukraine/Russia and Palestine/Isreal wars going on. I was interested in reading about the latest money being given to the Ukrainians for missile defence systems and the success of the Israelis in combating the Iranian missiles/drones. If these missile systems are so successful does that make nuclear weapon use less likely as they are more likely to be shot down? Should we now be spending our time and money on developing these effective ‘missile domes’ than nuclear submarine ‘deterrents’? It would certainly save us a lot of money.

One thing is certain that the developments in the atomic bomb has virtually ended world wars thankfully. The closest have ever come was the Cuba crisis and, thankfully, the Russians backed off. Russia chose to attack Ukraine because they have no nuclear deterrent and they are not part of NATO. Is this thinking now outdated if anti-missile ‘shields’ are so effective? Do we need a nuclear deterrent?

My thoughts are that we do not and we should spend our time and money on developing a much cheaper method of deterrence.

I worry about the day (which may be some distance away still but feels inevitable) where it becomes sufficiently easy to knock out ICBMs and therefore, all of a sudden, MAD is no longer a thing. The moment we dip from "certain extinction" to "devastating but survivable" you can guarantee somebody will try their luck.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the US' (and maybe China's) ability to defend themselves against nuclear weapons is much more advanced than we realise. I think Russia might know this too which is why their sabre-rattling is so hollow. They might know that if it came to it there's a non-zero chance they might be turned into a new Walmart car parking complex.

 

[flook]

All it needs is one to get through.

It's pretty simple to me, until there is complete nuclear disarmament, there can be no nuclear disarmament. MAD has worked for 70 years and (fingers crossed) will continue to do so. To rely purely on a defensive strategy without recourse to equivalent attack is like saying "go on, have a go"

Build the iron domes by all means, that may allow the scaling down of the nuclear response, but it should never be a stand alone defence because it is not a deterrent

 

[Mayor West]

No.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Have a read of this article. The attack was telegraphed weeks before it took place. It was basically a show of force from Iran but without the risk of an escalation to a bigger war as they knew the missiles would be shot down. The Israeli defences were ready and waiting for such an attack. A surprise attack would be a different kettle of fish.

The night Iran’s missile spectacle rattled Israel

Tehran’s ‘Operation True Promise’ demonstrated aerial might that was visible to all, but fatal to none

www.ft.com

Link is behind a paywall.