Why do countries have nuclear weapons if they never use them?

Original post by lightningdoritos

Hope I don't sound too ignorant here but nuclear weapons are hardly threatening if nobody dares to actually use them? Maybe I'm thinking on too big of a scale like giant atom bombs and stuff but using these would be so catastrophic that nobody would WANT to use them...so why have them?

This isn't meant to be some sort of political argument, I just want to know why :smile:

So that they never have to use them. The certainty of mutually assured destruction is what is being relied on to keep the peace.

Reply 7

username1226161

OP

15

Original post by Ki Yung Na

It's often called the deterrence theory - it's simply to say to other countries, we have the potential to hurt you as much as you do us so let's not **** around too much; this was basically taking place on steroids during the cold war.

Do you think that today (21st century) countries would actually use them if they were attacked? Or would they just go for the traditional army/navy stuff?

Reply 8

username1060297

21

Original post by lightningdoritos

Do you think that today (21st century) countries would actually use them if they were attacked? Or would they just go for the traditional army/navy stuff?

Would they? Sure they can. Is it sensible? No not really. We'd probably need either some ridiculously tough situations to arise diplomatically/militarily or we'd need idiot leaders who aren't under sensible control. But the way things work, diplomacy and military do not seem to hold the influence alone that they once did.
Today we have a monster economy which is held together by smaller economies both legitimate and otherwise in an even more intertwined fashion than ever before in terms of scale and complexity. Warfare and diplomacy - like it or not - are just as much part of this economy mess. So whilst nuclear weapons development is still taking place it it's all contained. Likewise we don't use the weapons/warfare like we did in the past but instead make sure they are still relevant to profit their expensive nature; in the past warfare was done inefficiently whereas now it's used really well to help alongside trade and diplomacy in order to keep the economy favourable for the biggest players.

At least that's roughly how I see it.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 9

Wellzi

16

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

I've been thinking much the same for years. No sane and moral government would ever use nuclear weapons, even if its country was under nuclear attack. I'm all for their complete abolition and dismantlement.

I'd authorise a total retaliatory strike against any attacking nuclear nation if I had the choice.

Reply 10

Drewski

It's like an insurance policy.

Nobody wants their car to be stolen, but you have insurance just in case it does.

Reply 11

Gazzaaa

12

Because it goes to show the lack of trust in the world. If trust truly existed among countries, as much as along people, there wouldn't be a need for such weapons.

Reply 12

Drewski

Original post by Gazzaaa

Because it goes to show the lack of trust in the world. If trust truly existed among countries, as much as along people, there wouldn't be a need for such weapons.

You think random people trust each other?

Reply 13

Originally designed as a weapon to make nations without fear you unconditionally that you may drop one bomb and you cities would be reduced to a blasted heath. Now since unreliable nations incl the cold war they're there as a weapon of last resort. Everyone knows that if any country launches one itll create a domino effect and we can say bye bye earth so now no one will get rid fof tfohem for fear of leaving themselves as an open target..
pakistan vs. India
UK/USA vs. Russia
each side doesn't want to be left defenseless.
Ironically enough nuclear weapons arent even especially bad compared to other things like bio weapons a nuclear bomb will level a city a biological bomb could kill most of a country for instance if America launched a missile packed with weaponized smallpox or Ebola etc.

Reply 14

Dylank96

11

Original post by lightningdoritos

Hope I don't sound too ignorant here but nuclear weapons are hardly threatening if nobody dares to actually use them? Maybe I'm thinking on too big of a scale like giant atom bombs and stuff but using these would be so catastrophic that nobody would WANT to use them...so why have them?

This isn't meant to be some sort of political argument, I just want to know why :smile:

Countries, like our own, have nuclear weapons in order to act as a deterrent and to use if even there was ever the need for them - let's hope that never happens! Their purpose is security. I hate them but realise their unfortunate necessity.

Reply 15

Original post by lightningdoritos

But after all that stuff in WW2 with Japan and all the damage that was done, surely nobody would repeat all that? Doesn't the fear just disappear since people know that they would never be used again (like a stalemate)?

IMO if anything the opposite is true people saw the power of fission and then fusion could unleash on your enemies and instead of sending millennium raids to bomb cities one plane with one bomb would do the same, aside from the fall out the principle of carpet bombing cities and nuking them remains the same look at a photo of Nagasaki then of Dresden you cant tell the difference..

Original post by Drewski

It's like an insurance policy.
Nobody wants their car to be stolen, but you have insurance just in case it does.

Interesting anaology

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

I've been thinking much the same for years. No sane and moral government would ever use nuclear weapons, even if its country was under nuclear attack. I'm all for their complete abolition and dismantlement.

Really? IF the country you were born and raised in was being reduced to blast glass you wouldn't use your weapon of last resort?
Either way most nuclear armed countries maintain the policy of proportional retaliation for instance I believe last time anyone spoke of the letters in the Trident subs they gave authority to the captain to launch as many as he wanted or as few or none.. if someone nuked birmingham for instance its unlikely we'd respond as it would lead to more destruction for us Only Russia/USA/Pakistan maintain first strike policies if i remember.

Reply 16

Original post by Dylank96

Countries, like our own, have nuclear weapons in order to act as a deterrent and to use if even there was ever the need for them - let's hope that never happens! Their purpose is security. I hate them but realise their unfortunate necessity.

The irony being any country that would launch a nuclear assault on us our pathetic response wouldn't be much of a deterrent.. :L

Reply 17

Dylank96

11

Original post by Soldieroffortune

The irony being any country that would launch a nuclear assault on us our pathetic response wouldn't be much of a deterrent.. :L

If we don't have the means to respond in the first place then the only alternative would be surrender.

I'm not sure what you mean by "our pathetic response wouldn't be much of a deterrent". If we responded then that wouldn't be a deterrent at all but rather a retaliation.

Reply 18

Drewski

Original post by Soldieroffortune

Interesting anaology

It is a knowingly simplistic analogy.

Reply 19