Why atomic bomb?

[meginhardarnegisel]

After the USSR collapsed, some things do not make sense. The atomic bomb emerged as a prevention against Nazi Germany. Then because of the arms race that was a measure of power between US and USSR thousands of bombs were produced. And now? All atomic bombs in the world should be turned off. Surveyor from neutral countries like Sweden etc. should be sent to the countries that have the atomic bomb to verify their deactivation.

[iNow]

How do you convince those nations who have nuclear weapons to surrender them? We're seeing the challenges with your desire right now with North Korea. Sometimes the people we need to give them up the most refuse to do so.

[swansont]

Why would the countries voluntarily give up such military power?

(The bomb was never used as prevention against Germany)

[HB of CJ]

Perhaps inaccurate assumptions?  It became clear to the USA that Germany would not get the first nuke.  They were already losing the war.  Strategic high level thinking.  That left Japan by default.  The bombs used there almost were not dropped.  Moral issues.  But ... historically we will never know for sure but it is possible the two bombs used against Japan SAVED PERHAPS one million Allied causalities and up to twenty million Japanese causalities.  A horrible time in world history.

Enter the Commies.  The Russians.  Stalin already had starved twenty million of his own people.  Not a nice government.  We, (the USA) kept building better bombs.  It was felt at the time we needed them.  The Soviets also build bombs.  Things got carried away.  Fixation.  Somehow we never nuked each other.  I for one still can not figure that one out.  Nations are paranoid.  Including the USA.  Many nations today have nukes.  Considered fairly easy tech.  Nasty but there you have it.

Like said already better, no nation that has had a nuke volunteering gives them up.  South Africa probably still has them.  So does Germany and other European nations.  So does Japan but nobody admits to it.  Australia?  Probably.  Now North Korea is approaching the point where they might be able to deliver a nuke via a ICBM.  Giving up nukes is something Nations will not do.  High level thinking.  Eventually a nuke will get used.  Either by accident or intent.   Get ready for it.

Sad.  Respectfully. 

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, HB of CJ said:

Perhaps inaccurate assumptions?  It became clear to the USA that Germany would not get the first nuke.  They were already losing the war.  Strategic high level thinking.  That left Japan by default.  The bombs used there almost were not dropped.  Moral issues.  But ... historically we will never know for sure but it is possible the two bombs used against Japan SAVED PERHAPS one million Allied causalities and up to twenty million Japanese causalities.  A horrible time in world history.

Enter the Commies.  The Russians.  Stalin already had starved twenty million of his own people.  Not a nice government.  We, (the USA) kept building better bombs.  It was felt at the time we needed them.  The Soviets also build bombs.  Things got carried away.  Fixation.  Somehow we never nuked each other.  I for one still can not figure that one out.  Nations are paranoid.  Including the USA.  Many nations today have nukes.  Considered fairly easy tech.  Nasty but there you have it.

Like said already better, no nation that has had a nuke volunteering gives them up.  South Africa probably still has them.  So does Germany and other European nations.  So does Japan but nobody admits to it.  Australia?  Probably.  Now North Korea is approaching the point where they might be able to deliver a nuke via a ICBM.  Giving up nukes is something Nations will not do.  High level thinking.  Eventually a nuke will get used.  Either by accident or intent.   Get ready for it.

Sad.  Respectfully. 

 

Most of the warheads in Europe are US made and likely controlled. I think only France and the UK have some operational independence, being distinct nuclear nations. If Japan, Australia and S. Africa have them, they'll be under a similar arrangement with the US as with the European bloc.

Edited August 30, 2017 by StringJunky

[beecee]

3 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

  Australia?  Probably.  Now North Korea is approaching the point where they might be able to deliver a nuke via a ICBM.  Giving up nukes is something Nations will not do.  High level thinking.  Eventually a nuke will get used.  Either by accident or intent.   Get ready for it.

Sad.  Respectfully. 

 

Australia probably not, and closer to certainly not.

On the rest of your statement, I would just say, let's hope wiser heads prevail and what you predict will prove to be wrong. 

[Area54]

Australia has no nuclear weapons, nor does Japan. South Africa dismantled their's in the 1990s. If any of these statements is incorrect it has, surprisingly, missed the attention of the usual conspiracy theorists.

[HB of CJ]

Do you understand what non disclosure contracts are?  Or you can talk to command grade military officers or some specialized enlisted.  They will not talk about it either.  It remains amazing how little so many smart and educated people know about Political Realities.   It is what one does not know that one does not want to know.  Probably a good place to be.

Respectfully.

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

Do you understand what non disclosure contracts are?  Or you can talk to command grade military officers or some specialized enlisted.  They will not talk about it either.  It remains amazing how little so many smart and educated people know about Political Realities.   It is what one does not know that one does not want to know.  Probably a good place to be.

Respectfully.

Yes. I also understand that it is in the interests of certain nations at certain times to publicise what they know of the nucelar capabilities of certain other countries. Realpolitik can be really revealing. That's something you have overlooked. (Apparently.)

[HB of CJ]

It is easy for us not to understand.  It is less easy to remain objective regarding certain subjects.  Routine self critical examination is difficult.  The Atom Bomb may be such a difficult subject to rationalize.  Our sad reality is that most people are not aware of or have not been exposed to the harsh realities regarding many subjects.  The Bomb is a good example of such.

We live in a real world.  History tells us the USA spent a ton of money and many years developing two types of very primitive atomic weapons.  It was our Nations second most expensive single project of World War Two.  The bombs worked.  A series of unfortunate political events resulted in an out of control arms race.  The USA vs the Soviet Union.  Very simple history.

No nation wants to give up a weapons system they developed at great expense and treasure.  Perhaps all Nations are paranoid.  The Real Politic.  It is impractical to expect all Nations to disarm.  Some will hold back.  Therefore by default all Nations who have them will hold back.  They will keep them.  Many nations possess the bomb.  This is not going to ever change. 

Sosss ... we must learn to live with what is real.  Lots of nations have nuclear weapons.  The tech has improved.  The weapons of mass destruction will become small enough that they might be considered just another very high explosive device.  Thus the added concern.  Forget the suitcase A bomb.  Consider the shoe box device.  Scary.  Doable.  We must live with this.

 

Respectfully.

[Thorham]

Quote

Why atomic bomb?

Because we're idiots.

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Because we're idiots.

Some people may consider short posts like yours to be lightweight. I think it's spot on and the sub-text is extensive.

[HB of CJ]

Things one can talk about.  The Soviet Union back in the cold war had several different Organs of government with their own bomb programs.  They did not trust each other and each could do what they wanted ... within reason.  Reason went out the air lock.  Not only did they not know how many bombs they made or where they all were "safely" stored, even today they will not admit as to knowing who has them.

These are not the big mega ton H bombs.  These are the "cheap" tiny workable, (most of the time) gravity bombs and even many 8 inch artillery shells. Miniature Uranium gun bombs.  Stable except for the precision detonators and explosives?   Thousands and thousands.  Somewhere there may be unclassified photos of soldiers carrying a 310  pound 8" nuclear artillery shell.  About 1-2 kilotons.

Most of the old Commie stuff had a definite shelf life.  Fortunately.  But they can be rebuilt with specific knowledge.  By now most the people who would know where they all are stored away in various places are dying off.  Will the new generation be told?  Dunno.  With modern computers and machine tool machines many nations can build nukes.  Even bad nations.  An ongoing problem today.

Sossss... what we have is a nasty situation where not only are nuclear nations NOT recycling the nukes but new non stable nations are building their own.   Or they pay the money and get the tech and stuff from other nasty nations.  Fortunately it takes weapons grade material to build a nuke.  But over the years even the USA has lost track of nuclear material.  Makes one wonder a bit.

Respectfully.

[Ten oz]

One huge barrier to worldwide nuclear disarmament is that is that it always seems incumbent upon the others to do so. The U.S.and Russia have the most nuclear weapons yet countries with considerably fewer are typically singled out. Ironically the U.S. and Russia have little need for nuclear weapons as both possess, especially the U.S., other weapon systems and tool of wars that far eclipse other nations around the world. The U.S. doesn't need nuclear weapons to roll over other nations. Yet a country like North Korea does arguably need nuclear weapons to prevent being rolled over. Its a conundrum.

 

If my country (United States) gave up its nuclear weapons I would be willing to support us unilaterally disarming others like Kim Jung-un. Saying no one should have nukes as they pose too great a threat to the world is a much different position than saying only we should have nuclear weapons and should be trusted managing the threat they pose to the world.

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If my country (United States) gave up its nuclear weapons 

Do you know that they gave up an awful lot of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you know that they gave up an awful lot of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

And still have a hundred times more than most.