Why Do Nuclear Weapons Exist?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
There was no massive geopolitical advantage in being the first state to create/posses nuclear weapons. BUT there would have been a massive disadvantage in not being the first

[Alex]

Originally posted by JohnT
Yes. America has no copyrights on the laws of physics.

Really? I thought that Microsoft have patented them some time ago...

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by JohnT

what?

1946-
US has nukes, USSR has no nukes - little chance of war in Europe

If neither US or USSR had nukes - little chance of war in Europe (so no real advantage)

US has no nukes, USSR has nukes - greater chance of war in Europe (US at a disadvantage)


Obviously this is working on the assumption that Stalin wanted a war to conquer Europe more that the US wanted to go to war to destroy the Soviets at the start of the Cold War.

Maybe I could have phrased my origional post better, but i think the logic stands up (with regards to the specifics of what i meant)

[DRoseDARs]

Why Do Nuclear Weapons Exist?

To make a cottage industry for the Survivalists.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
There was no massive geopolitical advantage in being the first state to create/posses nuclear weapons. BUT there would have been a massive disadvantage in not being the first

There was no disadvantage for USSR or China.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Dissident


There was no disadvantage for USSR or China.

The disadvantage for the USSR was that they never got the opportunity to conquer Europe

I can't remeber who said it (I think it was a US general) but during the Berlin airlift someone said "The chances of war are about one in ten...but if war comes, they'll get well and truly licked" - he was referring to the fact that though Stalin had designs on Europe, it was never going to happen because the USSR had the disadvantage of being the second power to develop nukes.

I know that the USSRs disadvantage could be (and will in replies to this be cited as a) US advantage, but I thinks there's a distinction in there.

[JohnT]

Maybe I could have phrased my origional post better, but i think the logic stands up (with regards to the specifics of what i meant)

Well, you stated that being the first to have nukes would put others at a disadvantage but would not confer an advantage to the country that first gained them.

If putting your opponents in a disadvantageous position is not advantageous for you, then I don't really understand the meaning of the word.

[Q Classic]

I'd like to see nukes used. As long as I'm from space and get to see them go boom. Kinda like the viewpoint you see in BSG or Terminator 3.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I'd like to see nukes used. As long as I'm from space and get to see them go boom. Kinda like the viewpoint you see in BSG or Terminator 3.

yeah thanks alot. some of us live on this planet ya know.

[Q Classic]

yeah thanks alot. some of us live on this planet ya know.

Details, details...

Gawd. Flippin' IDIOTS!

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
all we need is some holtzmann generators and we are done...

until some bastard builds a laser gun.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't want to threadjack (this thread doesn't look like it's going anywhere ), but I've always wondered something. It relates to the topic at hand.

Was it a good idea to build the manhatten project? I'm not going to debate Hiroshima/Nagasaki, that's been done to death.

Think about this, if we had not built it, would anyone have? The Russians only got it because we did. The Chinese only got it because the russians did (I think). The german program, if they ever had one was useless at the end of the war.

Building a nuke for the first time isn't an easy thing. Look at the history of Los Alamos and Oak Ridge for examples. It required many resources.

When you look at popular culture, they criticize men and their arrogance for building such things. But that seems like a simplistic view. Sure I presented an argument above how that could work. But that is just an argument. I think it was unrealistic to believe nuclear weapons would not be developed at some point. Or am I wrong?

so I ask this. If america had not built an atom bomb in the 40's, would anyone else have?

probably,the concept was already there. It just would have been harder since they couldn't have stolen anything from us.

In any event when an invading space crystal/eel/hydra gets taken out by norad all you nay sayers will change your tune.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I can't remeber who said it (I think it was a US general) but during the Berlin airlift someone said "The chances of war are about one in ten...but if war comes, they'll get well and truly licked" - he was referring to the fact that though Stalin had designs on Europe, it was never going to happen because the USSR had the disadvantage of being the second power to develop nukes.

It seems extremely unlikely that the evil Eurocomms would let the US to use nukes on their land.

[Dis]

nuclear weapons fascinate me to no end (see my avatar)

we now have a museum in our city for the tests pictured in my avatar that went on a very short distance from where I live.

The goverment finally did give some financial compensation for the victims in Utah, but only covered a small part of the state. It's tough to say how much the radiation spread, I'd have to look at an unbiased report somewhere.

My avatar is actually a nuke from an artillery shell. The first type of nuke developed for artillery.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

They necessary to prevent whole scale invasion from space.