Are nuclear weapons out of date?

As long as the destructive power of nuclear weapons exists and people believe in their power of deterrence, and we have not invented even worse weapons, then they will be around.

Sure would like to hope so.

No, you would be surprised at what our country has hidden in its closets.

Sadly, no. Despots covet them. Small nations consider them equalizers. Large nations use them for peace through Mutually Assured Destruction. Religous fanatics believe god guided their hands while making them.
They will be with us until something even more destructive comes around.

No, nuclear weapons, as long as they remain in the hands of those with a healthy fear of death, will never be used out of fear of MAD, peace through war, LOL.

(and yes, we do have a nuclear measure set that prevents Islamic terrorists from using nuclear weapons as a terror attack)

“The atomic bomb made the prospect of future war unendurable. It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.”

So said Robert Oppenheimer, Father of the Bomb.

As far as the West is concerned its nuclear arsenal will never be used. Apart from the obvious moral considerations it isn’t needed any longer as we can send a precision bomb through any chosen window in the land of our enemies. Rather than spend enormous sums of money on nuclear missiles and submarines shouldn’t we invest the money in new technologies that will ensure we can neatly take out hostile governments without obliterating the entire country?

@flutherother it would only work if every other country did the same, or if we developed a missile defense system that would guarantee the destruction of 100% of all incoming missiles (note: if even the system was capable of stopping all but 1% of the incoming nukes from Russia, that 1% is enough to wipe out most of the American population).

The whole point of MAD is that we never use the nukes, that no one uses them, not having nukes puts us at a disadvantage in the balance of world power. If you noticed, the five permanent members of the UNSC – the five nations with veto power – are all capable of killing nearly the whole world with nuclear weapons. If we were to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons, we’d pretty much lose all recognition at the UNSC as we would no longer have the muscle/leverage behind our decisions. Sadly, we need them to ensure ourselves as an “influential” voice in the world, as does Russia, China, France, and the UK.

One thing i think, is we should be investing in technology that lets us build nukes very fast. so we dont have to stock pile them all over the place, and then throw them in a mountain or bury them when they are too old. we could just stock a few, say a 2 or 3, and if we do want to use them and use more, we can build them real fast.

Having said that, nukes are kind of out of date. we have much more destructive capability if we really want to get nasty. for example, we could build a big ass impactor and put it in orbit, around venus. and if we ever need it, we just smash it in to the target of our choice at 30.000 miles an second. sure, it would be expensive to build. but would be devastating. it would release about the same energy as a nuke, it cant be shot down or intercepted, and while it would take us a while to be able to use it if we wanted to, when we did use it, it would hit so fast you would not even realize.

why am i talking so much about destruvtion and not other options, well, lets face it, a nuke is basically for pure destruction, and any replacement technology would be aimed at doing the same.

The countries that have nuclear weapons are all friendly with one another. They should be able to agree to destroy their nuclear stockpiles while maintaining the military capability to prevent any rogue state from developing them.

FRIENDLY?! are you serious?! Pakistan and India are butting heads as usual. Turkey, Pakistan, and other Muslim nations aren’t on all that great terms with Israel. Everyone suspects that Putin has some seriously dangerous ulterior motives, as well as China. And the US… well, no one is really liking us, especially not now.

@flutherother how many of them would still be friendly if they didn’t have the capability of destroying each other.

There are still armed clashes along the Russian-Chinese border every once in a while. India and Pakistan have almost daily clashes in Kashmir.

While they may be nonconfrontational, I don’t think they are all on friendly terms.

@WestRiverrat Maybe, but a more dangerous way of keeping the peace would be hard to imagine. Nuclear weapons aren’t really weapons, they are volcanoes or tsunamis waiting to happen. We should neutralise them while we can. I don’t believe it is impossible.

Until they come up with an antimatter bomb which would dwarf a nuke…Nukes will still be “big daddy” weapon. They are instant death, sure biological weapons, crippling infrastructure such as electric companies, water supply, finances can and would eventually destroy a nation…but a nuke is instant gratification…it’s like a miniature Sun dropped and exploded onto a city.

@flutherother I nearly forgot to mention this, but there are non-lethal uses for nukes (unless you have a pacemaker or are on life support)

A high altitude detonation (as in 30–50+ kilometers above the Earth’s surface) releases a massive EMP blast which knocks out electronics. No fatalities except for those with pacemakers or are on life support, and casualties (and perhaps minimal additional fatalities) from retina burn from watching the explosion.

just a little fyi.