Are nuke weapons a good thing?

[Lancer]

Have they benefited the world up to this time?

Do you think that they will benefit the world in the future?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Well, on the plus side, they probably prevented a long, protracted, bloody land war in Europe in the second half of the 20th century.

On the minus side, they will surely eventually end up in the hands of countries much less sane than those who faced off during the Cold War -- at which point, we're seriously fubarred.

[Lancer]

Exactly what I was thinking. That we're just at the end of the benefit stage. Though there was no point in the US/USSR going at it due to their own vulnerability, the next likely nuke attack will be in the war on terror, by the terrorists. How to retaliate against such an attack?

Regarding the WWs,

The 1st WW, truly the first industrialized war of slaughter, set the stage for the second. The second, which ended with the division of europe, set the stage for the third, the third never happened because of nukes, and only nukes could have stopped it, yes?

[Pekka]

no and the devil isn't good either if he chooses to fight our side. Just like nazis were no good too, even though they fought in our side against expansionist commie bastards. We will never know but their help might have been the deciding factor. None of the less they were evil bastards.

[Verres]

As loathe as i am to admit it, I agree with Pekka to some extent.

Nuclear weapons have been rather useful in preventing actual conflict....but that doesn't necessarily make them good things.

I'm sure there must be a better solution. Somewhere.

[Lancer]

Pekka, were it not for nukes, you might be dead. Likely you would be living under Russian domination. With no nukes, there isn't much NATO could have done to help Scandinavia.

Verres, while the statement
"I'm sure there must be a better solution. Somewhere."

might have felt good, it really doesn't work around here.

The Soviets put 10 armored and 10 motorized divisions in East Germany alone. In all of West Germany there were maybe a dozen NATO divisions. The USSR also had large conventional forces in Poland and Czechoslavakia.

I was on the border with East Germany, it wasn't a good situation.

Give your solution if you have one. Imo, nukes stopped the end of freedom in europe after WW2.

[Tattila the Hun]

Phoh, we'd have pushed them back to Urals, had they tried another landgrab. Karjala takasin, with interest!

[Proteus_MST]

I agree with Lancer.

I read that during the 80s the Soviets had accurate Battleplans in their drawers to take over the western part of europe.
They were based on surprise, speed and multiple waves of attacks to counter the western technological superiority and the soviet general staff took into account, that the first waves would have 80% losses and more (which wouldn´t make a difference, as after the first wave the second wave would press forward and so on).

So, despite nuclear weapons not being good, they were necessary during the 20th century (and if they hadn´t been there, the whole of europe would probably be under soviet control by now).

But nowadays (as was mention ed before) nuclear weapons grow to a larger and larger danger for peace, as more and more countries try to (openly or secretly) get their hands on nuclear weapons.

[Solver]

The Soviets were preparing to take over the rest of Europe, there's no denying that. If it weren't for nukes, I'm sure they'd attack the American troops shortly, and definitely win, because of large numerical and tactical advantages. The Soviets would have taken all or most of Europe. At which point, USA, despite having been attacked by Soviets, would be able to do nothing against it. They can't land a big enough force on Soviet land without huge casualties, a force that would be enough to win against the overzealous (for different reasons) Soviet soldiers. It would be much, much harder than the Battle of Normandy.

Nukes prevented a conflict between the USSR and the USA, which would have resulted in complete dominance of USSR in Europe, and, quite possibly, a very bloody yet resultless war with the USA.

At this point, though, nukes are a danger because of North Korea, Iran and similar insane countries. One hope is that theywon't actually get the nukes, and another hope is that the countries that are the first potential targets for these nukes (USA and Israel) have advanced defensive systems that stand a decent chance of intrecepting a nuclear attack.

[Lancer]

I expected much more arguement on this subject. I'm heartened to see the well thought out responses, ie, people agreeing with me in droves.

What about that old standby, the nuking of Japan, good thing?

[Hueij]

People still fall for that stupid "the Soviets can reach the Rhine in 6 hours if they want to" propaganda from the 1970's?

[Lancer]

Well yeah, I do. Unless there was mechanical failure on a grand scale there wasn't much to stop them.

[lord of the mark]

as the son of a US naval gunnery officer whose assignment in the event of an invasion of Japan in 1945 was to land secretly, in advance of the invasion and act as a spotter for naval gunfire, a task with an estimated survival rate only marginally above zero, I must disqualify myself from this discussion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
as the son of a US naval gunnery officer whose assignment in the event of an invasion of Japan in 1945 was to land secretly, in advance of the invasion and act as a spotter for naval gunfire, a task with an estimated survival rate only marginally above zero, I must disqualify myself from this discussion.

having the chance to get born
Harry Truman

[Wezil]

The whole 'nukes vs Japan' debate is based upon the assumption invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary to end the war. This is the better debate.