Is It Time to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?

Author Ward Wilson advocates eliminating nuclear weapons. Defense consultant Peter Huessy says that's unrealistic.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Is It Time to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?

Is it imperative that the world eliminate all nuclear weapons? That was the topic of a live debate hosted by the Soho Forum on September 19, 2022.

Ward Wilson is the author of Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons and president of RealistRevolt. He argued that nuclear weapons have almost no practical application, and it's time to end world leaders' fascination with their awe-inspiring power. 

Peter Huessy, is director of strategic deterrent studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and president of his own defense consulting firm, GeoStrategic Analysis. He argued that we can't get to nuclear abolition without getting other nuclear powers on board, including Russia and China, which both see them as essential tools in their foreign policy agenda

The debate was held at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan, and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie; edited by John Osterhoudt

Comments

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Geez us .

You first

[evataton]

I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (amu-09) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev

[Liberty Lover]

I am sure North Korea, Iran and Pakistan will be the first to give up their nukes! (sarc)

[NOYB2]

Kim knows the only reason he hasn’t been regime-changed out of existence is his nukes. Ditto for Putin.

[damikesc]

Can see why he’s President of “RealistRevolt”. No realist would be a part of that idiotic concept.

[The Encogitationer]

And Realists don’t believe in revolt anyway. They’re all about Realpolitik.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Hey, if we can eliminate mean tweets, I am sure we can eliminate nukes.

[Liberty Lover]

Only conservative mean tweets, we can never eliminate liberal mean tweets.

[NOYB2]

Why would anybody want to eliminate liberal mean tweets? When liberals are mean, even when they destroy lives and entire nations, it is for a good cause! /sarc

[Carey Allison]

It’s rare that I agree with crackpot ideas. But at my age I will have relatively little time to worry about the shitshow that some of these crackpots will have to live in and under while suffering “buyers remorse” once some of their good ideas become policy. Having nuclear weapons has enabled Putin to declare that there is no way he can “lose” the war with Ukraine if he chooses to use his “big stick”. The choice is up to him.

And if we don’t have nuclear weapons, either Russia or China can draw the same conclusions about us. Does anyone who is not actively drooling on themselves think the U.S. would have any chance in war with China without having the ability to make war too expensive to contemplate by virtue of our nuclear arsenal?

Giving up nuclear weapons sounds so peaceful, so non-aggressive, and so utterly stupid. Those who hammer their swords into plowshare will thereafter plow for those who don’t (and deservedly so).

[Briggs Cunningham]

Can’t really say it any better than this.

[Claptrap]

Does anyone who is not actively drooling on themselves think the U.S. would have any chance in war with China without having the ability to make war too expensive to contemplate by virtue of our nuclear arsenal?

Assuming a non-nuclear US vs. a nuclear-armed China? Yes, you’re absolutely correct. But one of the main reasons we have the US as the primary agitator for disarmament is the perception that we have a decisive advantage in conventional armaments. Should China fully close the perception gap or actually demonstrate their own superiority, our government is going to be a lot more protective of its deterrent.

[Longtobefree]

Why should we engage in a conventional war with the Communist Chinese? Once we sink their Navy (which is the Army) how can they get to us? Walk through Russia and Alaska?

[Demosthenes of Athens]

+1

[The Encogitationer]

Clinty said it best! 🙂
https://youtu.be/btRt3T4DF1c

[MatthewSlyfield]

“Is it imperative that the world eliminate all nuclear weapons?”

Is it possible for the world to eliminate all nuclear weapons? I would bet on no being the correct answer. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.

[Stuck in California]

Yeah, that’s like the debates about gun control.

The people who will voluntarily surrender their weapons are not the people you truly do not want armed.

People love to rail against the US as the bully since we were the post WWII world police, but holy shit will they be unhappy living under Chinese hegemony. It will not be like Pax Americana in post war Europe, it’ll be more like early 20th century banana republic wars in Central America, or Japanese imperialism in the 30s.

[sarcasmic]

Nukes are to countries what firearms are to individuals.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Only a superpower needs military-style assault nukes.

[sarcasmic]

Colt made men equal, and Oppenheimer made nations equal.

[Ecoli]

My compliments, Sarc, that is a good one.

Edited just to prove that I understand the edit button.

[JesseAz]

Except Rittenhouse. He crossed state lines.

[sarcasmic]

THE RED HERRING DID IT! THE RED HERRING DID IT!

[Sevo]

Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.

[JesseAz]

Oh. You didn’t lament how much it sucked when found not guilty. I can go post it if you want.

[sarcasmic]

Say what? If you think I thought he should have been found guilty then you really are retarded. I did say that he created the situation by showing up with a gun, and that had he hadn’t then he wouldn’t have been attacked and things wouldn’t have gone the way they did.

You know, personal responsibility. Something leftists despise. Something you despise too.

Yet again you’re just like the people you hate.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

At least one of the looters he shot had a gun.
But that doesn’t count, does it asshole?

[Ersatz]

sounds like you approve of a preemptive hecklers veto…
if people threaten to be a certain place to cause trouble then you have no business going there to pursue your own agenda if it might put you in danger from these hooligans…. but if you do go – make sure you cant protect yourself or its your fault.

[sarcasmic]

Just like Saint Babbitt. You despise personal responsibility, just like leftists. What happened to her was sad but predictable. You, like a leftist, blame everyone and everything else. But not her.

You’re just like the people you hate.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

I hope a cop feels like murdering you someday, you miserable bastard.

[sarcasmic]

I’ve got some aged gouda to go with your whine.

[sarcasmic]

Post it, Fucko. Let people with brains (that excludes you obviously) decide.

[sarcasmic]

You cloak yourself as a conservative, yet every strategy and tactic that you use is that of the left. You have no morals, no high ground, no nothing. No right or wrong. No principles.
The only difference between you and a leftist is the leader you support and the crowd behind you.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

“You’re just like the left!” Says the guy who mindlessly supports the left.

[sarcasmic]

Are you some retarded bird that thinks “tu quoque, tu quoque” is a mating call?

[Mike Laursen]

Hmm, I’ve been thinking about it and the analogy breaks down.

If guns were analogous to nuclear weapons, after you shoot someone their gun would still shoot you back. And the smoke from your own gun would be deadly to you.

[sarcasmic]

Guns make individuals equal because it gives weak people the power to kill. Killing isn’t just for those with more muscles and more friends.

Nukes make nations equal because it gives nations with weak militaries the power to destroy cities or worse. War isn’t just for those with lots of troops and allies.

[Agammamon]

There’s a reason we invaded Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and not North Korea.

[BillyG]

North Korea doesn’t need nukes to give us problems. They’ve got enough artillery in range of Seoul to level it in 15 minutes. That’s right now on their side of the DMZ.

[m40195971]

Billy’s right, but imagine we didn’t give a damn about South Korea.

Because we don’t.

South Korea is the dog eating underwear stain of Asia, with an authoritarian government that sanctions slave labor to help satisfy our need for electronic products and cars.

The truth, though, is that everything they produce could be done cheaper, if we let North Korea win reunification without a battle. That will let the Koreas drop the veil and openly employ slave labor throughout the peninsula.

That’s why we don’t invade. An invasion would ruin the manufacturing plants and raise costs. We just want their products, cheaply.

[n00bdragon]

Maybe ask the Chinese if they thought Hiroshima was just as deadly to them as it was to the Japanese. The risk of nuclear fallout spilling over to an allied area and giving people cancer is pretty minor compared to the “turn everything in sight into sand” destruction that a nuclear weapon inflicts on its primary target.

[Overt]

The arguments that RealistRevolt uses against Nuclear Weapons are exactly the arguments to have nuclear weapons. Their argument goes that no rational leader would use nukes as good weapons, because they are indiscriminate, sloppy and poisonous. That is, the horror they would unleash is so horrible that no rational person should want to use them.

Except if this is a reason a rational leader doesn’t want to use them, then it is a reason why a rational leader wants to HAVE them.

There are two possible attributes at play here. Is someone a rational actor or not, and are they aggressive or defensive? If they are irrational, then all bets are off the table. You can’t logic your way out of crazy. But if you are a rational leader, then you have the following calculous:

Rational Aggressive Leader: This person sees the value of nuclear weapons to instill terror in the enemy and force them into concessions that they would otherwise be unwilling to accept. Rationally speaking, the Aggressive leader wants nuclear weapons precisely because they give that leader additional options. If they are dealing with irrational leaders, then nukes are not helpful, because they can threaten all they want and the irrational people will do what they were going to do anyways. But it is noteworthy that tactical nukes can be rationally deployed to do all sorts of damage that would otherwise require significant effort.

Rational Defensive Leader: They want nuclear weapons because the horror of nukes will give pause to a rational aggressive leader. And mind you, this doesn’t speak of good or evil. The North Koreans are undoubtedly evil, but their pursuit of nukes has rationally protected them from international influence. If you assume your aggressor is rational, having nukes is the only rational way to take their use of nukes off the table.

[Kivlor]

Pretty spot on, but I’d say nukes don’t take nukes off the table. They take conventional armies off of it. The US is a great example of a rational aggressive nation, and we love to go kicking around anthills as long as there are no nukes. Once those are on the table, the options become clandestine operations and attempted color revolutions, or nukes, because invading a rational defender is going to end in the nukes flying.

[Overt]

Right. My point was that if I have nukes, I have a lot more ability to make my point stick. I can send my armies, ships, people wherever I want, and the cost for you to resist is increased *because of the nukes*. And so, by getting nukes, you negate this advantage, and so make me less likely to send my armies, ships, and people to you.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I agree with you mostly, but you’ve left out one aspect: what if US conventional forces were defensive and domestic only? Only coastal patrol ships and subs, no long range bombers, no overseas bases, only a well-armed militia, and no nukes. I’ve wondered about this from time to time.

Not even having the potential to interfere overseas pulls the rug out from underneath almost all rational terrorists and their supporting nations. It also leaves Europe to their own defenses against Putin, and Taiwan and South Korea to their own defenses, although in a good libertopia, USians could give or sell all the advanced weaponry they wanted.

It’s the nuclear component which is most mysterious. As you say, irrational nuke owners are undeterred by US nukes, but I’d add that irrational nuke owners can never arise except by sudden brain tumors, because their own generals would rather enjoy their luxurious small ponds than risk everything irrationally. That is why Dear Leader is not a real threat.

Rational foreigners don’t need to rely on their nukes instead of, or to protect, their own conventional forces.

I always come to the same conclusion: that if the US had no conventional offensive capability, it would not need any nukes either. This says nothing about occasional small Marine forces rescuing embassy staff.

But because the topic comes back so often, I gather my brain hasn’t really settled on that answer.

[soldiermedic76]

We tried that. Didn’t turn out so well. It failed within decades of the founding of the nation. Bigger, stronger nations, as well as pirate states, took advantage of it. Stopping our shopping, enslaving our citizens, seizing our cargoes etc. See the Barbary coast wars, the Faux War with France, the lead up to the 1812.

[soldiermedic76]

Japan has something similar but has only made it work because they are strongly allied to us and depend on us if they get in a jam. They don’t even pretend to hide this. And despite that they are attempting to modify or circumvent article 9 of their constitution to build up their forces because they realize even with a stronger ally thousands of miles away, they have big bad enemies right next door (who have a reason to hate the Japanese).

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Comparing militia-less and tiny Japan to the US is also meaningless.

[soldiermedic76]

No, it isn’t meaningless. Japan is very informative as to how your proposal would work, e.g. it only works because Japan has allied itself to a bigger, badder nation willing to fight for Japan’s freedom. As for our coasts and how far apart they are, strategic bombers don’t care anymore. Nor do most modern cruise missiles. Most cruise missiles launched from a ship in international waters have the range to easily hit any target in the center of our nation. If launched from strategic bombers the range is even longer. Maybe, maybe, if we looked at 18th century technology the remoteness of the US was protective (and as we saw even in the 18th century it really didn’t stop larger European powers). By the end of the 19th century the oceans barely provided any defense. By the middle of the 20th century no defense.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The discussion is about rational leaders with nukes, not the irrational ones. It’s a huge distinction.

The discussion thus devolves to conventional war and invasion, not nuclear threats.

[soldiermedic76]

Rationale is a subjective term. Define rationale. Japanese reasoning for attacking south Pacific was rational for them, and even quasi rational to even their enemies.

[soldiermedic76]

It’s a modern quasi myth that war for acquisition of resources isn’t rational. For most of our history, control or acquisition of resources was the most rational reason to go to war.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Kim Jon Il (?) is rational. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all rational. Most leaders are rational; the irrational get weeded out.

Starting a nuclear war against a non-nuclear power with a defensive-only military is not rational.

[Stuck in California]

Yeah. Japan and the whole Asian Co-prosperity Sphere concept was, literally, Japan trying to join the western nations as a modern country. All of the Europeans had colonies places with various raw materials or resources, including islands all over the Pacific, Burma, India, Hong Kong, Macao, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc.

They fucked up and woke the sleepy nation with impossible resources to fight against, but all their aggression was modern (for the 1930s) imperialism. And the reason they are our great ally and a massive modern economy to this day is partly because they did, in fact, have a goal to modernize and become less isolated. They wanted some western values even if they had a unique history and a culture very different than ours.

An irrational actor would be like a non-state actor (Al Qaeda) or a strong man with a grudge who took over a destabilized state. The sort who wants to punish enemies for God or to create a demon to coalesce a power base around, but ACTUALLY believes it.

Usually these actors rail against the biggest guy on the block not because they expect that guy to care, but because they are performing for their people back home. “Look how brave I am. I’m defending your interests against this tiger, this dangerous foe, the biggest beast on the block” the nation that everyone at home can hate. They don’t actually want war, they just want to look strong.

It’s the true believer that can send suicide bombers to destroy civilian landmarks full of civilian people that is the irrational actor. Driven to destroy just to destroy, just to force their will on an enemy they have a divine duty to harm. Give that guy a nuke and he’d light it off in Manhattan if he could, just because.

[m40195971]

Japan should ally itself to China. I don’t give a damn about Japan and I’m sure no other red blooded American would lift a finger to defend them.

They don’t even make good cars anymore. Damn.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The US is a lot bigger now, coast to coast. I can’t imagine any plausible invasion in the first place, and there are far too many well-armed militia in the second places.

Comparing the current US to the 1812 version is meaningless to the discussion of invasion.

[soldiermedic76]

I was more focused on the impact of having no Navy to foreign trade, especially exports. What lead to the war of 1812 and the Barbary Coast wars? Lack of Naval forces that allowed pirate nations to prey on our shipping without any risks. I suggest you read Ian Tolls 6 frigates.

[soldiermedic76]

And you’re right it provides no real meaning because in the early 19th century it took months to cross the Atlantic, whereas today, a bomber launched in Russia can hit Chicago in hours.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

That is a topic for irrational leaders with nukes, not rational leaders and conventional war.

[soldiermedic76]

Hell, they don’t need nukes. Fuck see what we did to Iraq without one nuke being fired, often with aircraft launched from North Dakota and Idaho, which them landed at their point of origin. Those B-52s and B-1s and B-2 bombers we hit targets in Iraq never were stationed outside CONUS they were launched from Minot AFB and Eagle Mountain AFB, and returned to those bases. That’s the reality of modern war, not B-17s in England barely reaching targets in Central Germany, but bombers launching from North Dakota in the morning, bombing Baghdad in the afternoon and landing in North Dakota they evening and the pilots and crews sleeping in their own beds that night with their spouses, and this was happening during even the first gulf war, when Iraq had the most advanced air defense system outside of Israel in the middle east and the largest air force outside Israel in the Middle East.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Right, because the Russians and Chinese have enough conventional bombers which can reach US cities, survive defensive fighters and missiles, and return for a measly few tons of conventional bombs.

Entirely rational.

[BYODB]

Look up FOAB and then realize that nuclear weapons aren’t the only kind of bombs you want to avoid.

The fact is bomb technology has come a long way since WW2 and nukes aren’t the only thing that can level a city.

Plus, fuck it, drop a steel sphere from orbit on a major city and realize it’s mostly just left over fear mongering that makes nukes particularly worrisome.

Lastly, bombers are just about a thing of the past for superpowers so who cares. It’s been all about rockets since at least the space program. Good luck taking out a hypersonic missile with a fighter or SAM.

[soldiermedic76]

Did you miss the point about air launched cruise missiles and now hypersonic weapons? Because a Tu-95 in the Bering Sea can launch either of those and hit targets deep within the US. As for BYODB, bombers aren’t really obsolete because air launched cruise And hypersonic weapons have greater range than surface launched except those that go extra-atmosphere (which is actually pretty damn expensive). The higher you are the further your rwnge. As we have seen in Ukraine, modern bombers and fighter bombers inside Russian air space can easily reach targets hundreds (and in many cases) thousands of miles away.b

[BYODB]

As for BYODB…

They are still useful for real world tasks, but in terms of an open war with another super power bombers are likely a fools errand. The opening salvo of that war is also the end of that war even without nukes. Every major urban center would be a burned out husk in a few hours, and it doesn’t require nukes to do it.

Amusingly, even without nukes a case could be made for MAD theory still applying. Modern armaments are nasty and difficult, if even possible, to counter. This is why super powers don’t directly fight each other: they know it’s beyond foolish to go toe-to-toe because victory means death.

[soldiermedic76]

Yeah, we have several conventional weapons that are more destructive than what we dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So do our possible foes.

[soldiermedic76]

Additionally, you rejoinder is based on our actual military not on the military your thought experiment alludes to. Again, aircraft that are only capable of providing close in, short range air cover wouldn’t have nearly as much impact against long range strategic bombers.

[soldiermedic76]

An seaborne invasion force from China would be able to land troops in Seattle in two days. An airborne operation within hours. Technology basically makes what you wonder about practically impossible unless you rely on someone larger for protection, vis a vis Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, etc. As for neutrality that only works if both sides honor it. The one thing about long time neutral countries is that they generally are resource poor and strategically poor countries. The US is resource rich, and well developed and fairly well placed strategically for control of the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific. Not a good recipe for long term neutrality.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You don’t know much about amphibious operations if you think an invasion of Seattle from China is remotely possible.

[soldiermedic76]

If we only had coastal defense ships and no long range bombers, yes it is possible. It’s only not possible because we have a strong navy and long range bombers.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The logistics alone make it impossible. You know nothing of amphibious invasions if you don’t know that.

[soldiermedic76]

The logistics are only a difficulty because our naval and air forces make them difficult. Actually, if you understand military logistics, uncontested water routes actually are some of the best routes for logistics, you can ship more than over land. The only limitation is unloading. Again, your assumptions are based upon a current state of reality that is premised on the fact that we can project power and control far beyond our borders. If you rely on a coastal defense force with no long range attack aircraft, you basically have given the enemy control of the most efficient means of resupply.

One of the lessons of world war 2 was despite the allies relying on the sea for logistics, while Germany relied on shorter ground routes the allies were always able to resupply better than the Germans, especially after we captured and clearer Antwerp, but even when we relied on the unimproved harbors at Normandy. Yes we produced a lot more than Germany, but it doesn’t matter how much you produce if you can’t deliver it. Our control of the ocean meant that we could fully bring our massive production to bear. And the distance between east coast ports and Normandy and southern France is similar to the distance that China would have to ship supplies. Operation Torch was an even better example. Almost all supplies came directly from North America and weren’t staged in England. By August of 1944, very few supplies used in Northern Europe got pre staged in England. The invasion is Sicily, Italy, and Southern France also were mostly supplied directly from the US. Almost all the Pacific was also. Almost the entire second world war says your analysis of logistics in amphibious warfare is wrong. Control of the sea made those logistics possible.

If you rely on short range attack aircraft and coastal defense fleet (basically all Germany had left by October 1942 and Japan by June of 1942) resupplying over the ocean becomes extremely easy. Heck, this isn’t even hypothetical this is based on long evidence. We fought a massive two front war and by late 1942 had absolutely no problem maintaining combat operations including massive and multiple (often simultaneously) amphibious operations anywhere we chose to. Because our opponents had nothing left but coastal defense forces and ships and short range attack aircrafts. I don’t need a thought exercise because I have actual evidence.

Also, China is one of the leading producers of merchant shipping in the world. China has one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, why do you think the logistics are impossible if they were uncontested on the blue water? The only advantage out coastal length and wide ocean provides us is because we have the strongest blue water navy in the history of the world. History time and again has shown that a large coast is an invitation for invasion if you can’t project power on the blue waters of the ocean. Brown water navies have never been able to stop invasions by a blue water navy. China is quickly building a true blue water navy. I’m not trying to be insulting but it actually appears you don’t understand amphibious operations. The only way to defend against a determined, blue water navy is with another blue water navy. If you only have a brown water navy and a huge coast (especially if you have multiple developed ports on that coast) you are asking to be invaded. This has been true since the Phoenicians and remains true to this day.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And what part of “thought experiment” do you not understand? My premise is on a neutral US without offensive capability and dealing with rational leaders. Make up your own thought experiment with irrational nuclear war and 5000 mile two-day invasions if you want to get into the fantasy realm.

[soldiermedic76]

I am dealing with reality of modern warfare and technology, as well as historical examples of when we actually did try your thought experiment on real life. And the conclusion is yours is the fantasy.

[soldiermedic76]

Sweden only maintained neutrality during World War 2 because they got in bed with Germany commercially and Germany’s conquest of Denmark and Norway made any attempt by the allies to utilize Sweden nearly impossible. Switzerland basically was the same. Spain was a quasi ally of Germany and was economically poor and really didn’t have many resources Germany or the allies needed. Portugal was a quasi ally of the England but economically it didn’t have many resources either side needed and was to geographically isolated to benefit Germany at the time. Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania etc didn’t have those luxuries and see what happened to their neutrality.

See what happened to Neutral countries overseas colonies in the Pacific, especially in the east indies. Thailand was basically forced to ally with Japan or else, Portuguese colonies pretended to be neutral while being forced to submit to Japanese oversight. Mongolia was a puppet state of the Soviets, and fought border clashes with Japan that only ended when Japan became ensnared in the quagmire of conquering China. America before the oil embargo was already a target of Japan, and the debate was rather to attack the Soviets or US first in the Japanese cabinet. Basically about the only way to protect yourself in modern war is to be either to poor, especially in resources, to be worth invading (and also have no strategic value) or to ally yourself to bigger countries or to become subservient and part of a larger countries hegemony. Then again, this really isn’t a new state, as this has historically been about the only way ever to maintain true neutrality (see Switzerland and other neutral Duchies of the Holy Roman Empire during the 30 years war for example).

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Are you seriously comparing Sweden surrounded by enemies, with the US surrounded by oceans?

[soldiermedic76]

If you don’t have a blue water navy, being surrounded by oceans is more a disadvantaged than being surrounded by land enemies. Sweden actually had more natural geographical defenses than the oceans provide us. The mountains between Norway and Sweden provide far more defensive value than an ocean. You greatly overestimate the value of oceans as geographic defenses. They aren’t unless you have a large blue water navy that can intercept enemy forces at a distance and hurt them at a distance. Oceans are not barriers and haven’t been for several millinnea. No, anyone who thinks brown water operations are adequate to defend the coast doesn’t understand the first thing about logistics or history of war. And that is what coastal defense navies are, brown water navies. A country with a blue water navy, against an opponent with a brown water navy, will have functionally zero problems with conducting any and all amphibious operations they want. History shows this time and time again. The examples are simply way to long to list.

[Barrie]

what if US conventional forces were defensive and domestic only, and the only weapons the US had for defense was nuclear weapons… No standing Army, just a lot of nukes… and an armed militia.

[soldiermedic76]

The realty is that if you’re fighting a defensive war on your own soil, you have to be willing to absorb massive damage to your productivity, huge civilian casualties, massive destruction of infrastructure, etc. It’s far better to fight on your opponents soil and stop them far before they reach your soil. That requires a large well equipped formidable blue water navy and air force. Also, land based only nuclear weapons are extremely vulnerable to first strike. Without nuclear subs (especially boomers) nuclear deterrence is much less effective to another large nuclear force. The reason why North Korea and Iran can use nukes to deter the US and the west is more about our morality and culture. A nuclear attack by North Korea is basically strategically and tactical insignificant to the US. For that matter, if we wanted to, we could basically destroy all of North Korea’s nuclear force before it could even get off the ground if we hit first, with conventional weapons alone. The bigger deterrent is what China would do. And they have both land based and submarine based nukes. Submarine based nukes are actually a bigger deterrence than land based. They’re mobile and really difficult to detect until they’re launched. Other than a few urban areas, like DC, most of the Soviet first strike weapons were aimed at places like Minot North Dakota and Great Falls, Montana and the surrounding rural areas, because that’s were our ICBMs are located and they’re very hard to hide. Even mobile launchers aren’t as much of a threat as submarine launched nukes. Again, for true deterrence you have to have both land and sea based nukes and a blue water navy capable of hunting your opponents sea based nukes. And the best way to kill a sub in modern warfare is with another sub.

[soldiermedic76]

In modern warfare, the only way to remain purely defensive and neutral is to be resource poor, and landlocked. If you aren’t either you need really strong friends willing to fight for you or sacrifice your autonomy to any belligerent country that comes along. None of these applies to the US. We are resource rich, advanced strong economy. Have massive coastal areas to defend and very few countries are big enough to be a deterrent ally.

One more thought, a large enough nuclear land based force would be much more expensive than our current defense budget. Nukes are expensive to house, maintain, and provide security for. You would still need massive ground security forces to protect your arsenal, a militia wouldn’t be enough.

That’s the biggest problem with isolationists dogma, the fact that the US is easy to invade this day and age, it’s only our formidable blue water Navy and Air Force, that makes invasion too difficult for others to contemplate.

Yeah, maybe in the 19th century we could possibly rely to some degree on the vastness of our country and the oceans to provide some level of deterrence (the biggest issue was lack of infrastructure which made land movement too difficult for either side). But after the completion of the transcontinental railroads this largely became moot. And today it’s even less of a deterrence with our highway systems and railroads, not to mention our navigable rivers. And after 1817 we maintained a large enough blue water navy to cause problems for any possible belligerent nation capable of invading us, hell by 1798 we had begun to build enough blue water capability to give anyone but France and England (the two strongest superpowers of the time) trouble.

What we learned between 1812-1815, was that despite the advantage of our frigates, without ships of the line we couldn’t defend our coasts and were at the complete mercy of the English Navy. The English were capable of launching operations anywhere they wanted to along our coasts, which they did in 1814 and early 1815 and we could do nothing but respond and response was only as good as being able to predict where they were going to strike. Hell, if any body of water was defensible by coastal defenses only, it would be the Chesapeake bay, which is narrow, shallow, with multiple islands to build fortifications and navigable rivers capable of sheltering coastal shipping, such as gunships. It didn’t even slow the British. They swatted aside our gunship fleets, sailed with impunity almost to the head of the bay, and landed a force basically unchallenged until outside Baltimore. Militia couldn’t and didn’t present any real impediment until they reached the cobstruncted defenses outside Baltimore and we didn’t have any regulars in place in force except in Baltimore. The same thing happened in New Orleans. The British fairly easily swept our coastal defenses out of the way to land forces, operated mostly unhindered, and it was only because of the massive defenses Jackson constructed that we stopped their advance. In the interior of the US at the time, the biggest reason Britain didn’t make larger gains was because the only lines of communication really were the Great Lakes, which they never controlled exclusively, and by the end of the war our Navy dominated all but one of the Great Lakes and the one we didn’t control it was a stalemate.

The other major lesson from the British view of the colonial wars in North America was the lack of infrastructure made logistics anywhere more than twenty miles from shore or tidal rivers almost impossible. Today, North America, especially the US, has some of the most advanced infrastructure in the world. Almost every single state has at least on major highway traveling north south and another east west. Almost every single river, and especially any geographically important river, is bridged multiple times. The majority bridges for both rail and wheeled traffic. Every county has at least one municipal runway and most cities larger than 50,000 have runways capable of handling the largest aircraft. We’ve tamed the Columbia, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Hudson, Delaware etc that they are nearly navigable along their whole length. Basically our wealth and modernity has rendered moot most of the advantages that our massive size once afforded us. As a result we can’t depend on defensive, local military to provide deterrence, we must be capable of conducting military action at arms reach. The further from our shores, the better for us.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

The arguments that RealistRevolt uses against Nuclear Weapons are exactly the arguments to have nuclear weapons. Their argument goes that no rational leader would use nukes as good weapons, because they are indiscriminate, sloppy and poisonous. That is, the horror they would unleash is so horrible that no rational person should want to use them.

Exactly this. Exxxxactly this.

[Agammamon]

He is also wrong.

There is nothing magical about nuclear power. Nukes are just a more dense package of bang. That is it.

You can make nukes as small as 50 tons yield – roughly a heavy bomber’s payload but you can guarantee no spread – it’s *more* accurate and reliable.

The big city killers just do in one go what it takes a week of strategic bombing to accomplish – and radiation/fallout if neglible because you’ll want an airburst there.

The only real issues come from bombs targeting hardened military infrastructure – like ICBM fields or NorAD.

[soldiermedic76]

If you use incendiaries, even in modern urban areas, along with high explosives, it doesn’t even take a week to destroy a large urban area. It’s just for the most part, we haven’t used incendiaries against urban targets since 1945. High explosives to knock over buildings, exposing flammable materials, and destroy waterlines, incendiaries to ignite the exposed flammable materials. Also, the rubble from high explosives really fucks with response time of emergency workers. Dresden was a fairly intact, modern urban area until one day and night the USAAC and the RAF paid it a visit. Then it was pretty much a gutted wasteland.

[soldiermedic76]

And just as a reference, the F9F panther of Korean war era carried more munitions than a single B-17. A modern B-52 carried more munitions than a squadron of B-17s did.

[soldiermedic76]

Another fun fact, but a single modern US infantryman has more firepower than a Revolution era regiment (rate of fire 600 rounds per minute with an effective range of less than 100 meters, actually closer to 25 meters of you engaging a point target vs 750 rounds per minute with an effective range of 550 meters at a point target, 800 at an area target for the modern rifleman), even without supporting arms like air, armor and artillery.

[NOYB2]

The classification into “rational” and “irrational” makes little sense. Like it or not, even from the perspective of what you would consider a “mad” dictator, the use of aggression and violence makes rational sense: they are concerned with power and with history, and they may simply be choosing the best of a number of bad options. And often, irrationality is wrongly attributed to other leaders or nations simply to hide one’s own responsibility in some conflict.

[BYODB]

It’s so utterly juvenile to think nuclear weapons are going away that it astounds that any adult believes it’s even a possibility.

Even if the U.S. got rid of every nuclear weapon and erased all knowledge of them, there are still a bunch of other countries that would never agree to it who would be more than happy to invade or otherwise act with impunity. We’d probably be a glass crater by now without them.

[JesseAz]

Argument from delusion. It will never happen.

[Sevo]

I’ll bet you don’t like unicorns, either.

[JesseAz]

Just nuke bearing unicorns.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

AND??????

[NOYB2]

Argument from delusion. It will never happen.

I would have said that about ideas like “men can get pregnant” and “let’s print money to reduce inflation”. Yet, our president, elected overwhelmingly by popular vote, embraces and implements just those ideas and they are happening.

[Mike Laursen]

Let’s just say that right at this moment it’s not a realistic possibility.

[Bill Godshall]

Only a foolish (and soon to be overthrown) leader would voluntarily eliminate their nuclear weapons (especially after Ukraine eliminated its nuclear weapons several decades ago after Russia and US ensured future peace).

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Overt]

Right…Iraq, disarmed, gone in about 20 years. Libya canceled its program, regime changed in about 8. Ukraine abandoned its nukes, and within 30 years they are at the whim of nuclear nations.

Rationally speaking, giving up nukes in the face of rivalrous nations that do have nukes is the sucker’s play.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

North Korea and Iran learned those lessons.

[The Encogitationer]

Ackshuyally, the nukes never were Ukraine’s, but nevertheless, you are correct that if Ukraine did have nukes, things would be very different on the world stage.

[NOYB2]

Only a foolish (and soon to be overthrown) leader would voluntarily eliminate their nuclear weapons (especially after Ukraine eliminated its nuclear weapons several decades ago after Russia and US ensured future peace).

If Ukraine had had weapons, it wouldn’t have been invaded by Russia. Not because Russia would have feared the nuclear weapons (they would have), but because Ukraine leaders would have a very different relationship with Europe and the US.

The point is: having nuclear weapons doesn’t just change your defense capabilities, it fundamentally changes what kind of society you live in, your political system, and how your nation deals with other nations.

[Mike Laursen]

Growing up, I figured there was a good chance I’d never make it to age 40. But then the Soviet Union fell, the 21st Century happened, I got married and had kids. Seemed like there was hope for a bright future.

Then Putin is like, “I miss the good old days.”

[Dillinger]

cat’s out of the bag, dude. plus the Underwater Aliens will stop us from total annihilation

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

He argued that nuclear weapons have almost no practical application, and it’s time to end world leaders’ fascination with their awe-inspiring power.

Convince India, Iran and China of that.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

And let the Paki’s run the world, are you crazy.

[BYODB]

Considering how inbred Pakistan is, it’s a wonder they figured them out at all.

And that’s not racism, it’s objectively true of their genome. Hooray religious inspired inbreeding!

[BYODB]

I take it this guy never heard of MAD theory and likes to go with the childish Superman 4 plot as being possible.

All we need is one godlike superhuman being to disarm us all and install themselves as our moral superior. Oh…well crap…

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

No, thanks; I like the relative peace they’ve provided.

[Sevo]

“Defense consultant Peter Huessy says that’s unrealistic.”

Betting that, in private, his language regarding the proposal is a bit more ‘colorful’.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The eBook is only $1.99, I bought it out of curiosity. But my expectations are low right from the description; the author sounds like an idiot.

• that nuclear weapons necessarily shock and awe opponents, including Japan at the end of World War II

Anyone who thinks the atomic bombs did not provide the trigger to ending the war is an idiot.

• that nuclear deterrence is reliable in a crisis

How can this even be measured?

• that destruction wins wars

WW I: Germany surrendered without being destroyed, leading Hitler to avenge the stab in the back instead of admitting they had actually lost.

WW II: Germany was utterly destroyed, leaving no illusions about who had lost and how.

• that the bomb has kept the peace for sixty-five years

Can’t be proved one way or another.

• and that we can’t put the nuclear genie back in the bottle

No shit sherlock.

But for only $2, the chance of some value makes it a reasonable read.

Japan’s surrender and those who claim the atomic bombings were too horrible really piss me off. The Tokyo firebombing of March 1945 alone killed about as many civilians as both atomic bombings. The Japanese army killed 200,000 people in each of the last four months of the war, more each month than both atomic bombings. Extrapolating from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the two planned invasions would have left 1 million American dead and 5-10 million Japanese dead. The Japanese should thank the US for giving their Emperor an excuse for surrendering. As for the USSR’s entry into war against Japan, they had no means to invade Japan proper; all they had done was invade occupied Manchuria. They were scary but impotent as far as Japan proper.

[soldiermedic76]

I strongly suggest people read the book Tower of Skulls which goes into far greater depth than any book I’ve ever read into the mindset of Japan in the 1930s till May of 1942. Don’t expect detailed explanation of battles, but if you want a good read about the political forces and cultural forces in 1930s Japan this is the book. It really changes some of the pre-conceptions about Japanese aggression (but doesn’t at all excuse Japan or play it for sympathy).

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yep, great book. You might also like Curse on this Country which describes how the Japanese leadership allowed and encouraged their junior officers to lead the country around by the nose. Spoiler alert: because they were honoring the spirit of the Emperor, while the official laws and military goals were only a pathetic civilian corruption of the letter of the Emperor’s decrees.

[soldiermedic76]

Yes, when you look at the Manchurian incident, the blatant insubordination during the Sino-Japanese war, and the multiple mutinies by the army it really changes the Japanese soldiers, especially mid level officers, were automotrons subservient to the leadership. If anything the Japanese leadership reacted often to placate their mid-level officers, who were a threat to their power. Even Tojo initially opposed the invasion of China and opposed war with the US (initially). He was only appointed because he was perceived to be capable of enforcing subordination on mid level officers.

[Mickey Rat]

The mid level officers were not merely a threat to their power, they were a threat to their lives. Less belligerent civilian and military leaders were often assassinated by cliques of mid-level officers. Japanese interwar politics is one of the strangest things in world history.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

One of the roots of the Pearl Harbor attack was US imperialism, starting with its Open Door policy in China, which always seemed more down to envy of being late to the game rather than truly wanting trade on an equal footing. Next was the forced opening of Japan to world trade. The acquisition of the Philippines and Guam in 1898 didn’t help.

When Japan was forced to open up in 1854, they had seen what happened to the rest of Asia and knew what the game was, and decided to play the white man’s game, conquering bits and pieces of China, turning Korea and Taiwan into colonies. But it was defeating Russia which really freaked out the white West — how dare this yellow race defeat a white race! Japan sent destroyers to the Mediterranean to help the Allies in WW I, attacked German colonies in the Pacific, and got bupkis recognition. The final straw was California passing a law (later overturned) banning US citizens of Japanese descent from owning land. The insult is hard to exaggerate. Hadn’t they played the white man’s game by the white man’s rule? That’s what really solidified their decision to militarize and hate the west.

They might have been able to get away with it too, kick the white man out of Asia with their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, if they hadn’t been even worse racists than the West, and their attack on the Philippines and Pearl Harbor was so unnecessary (Roosevelt wanted to fight Germany, not Japan) and counter-productive that they deserved to lose WW II from stupidity alone.

[soldiermedic76]

US imperialism was always very controversial. The open door policy in China, at least as viewed by the US, was meant to bring wealth to both parties. The ruling dynasty in China basically had impoverished the country trying to control trade. And Phillipinnes US policy had basically evolved within decades of our acquisition to a policy of empowering the Philippines to be able to govern themselves independently by 1944. Roosevelt had made this official policy in the early 30s, less than 40 years after the US acquired the Philippines. I think the idea of American Imperialism is greatly exaggerated. If anything the US actually became more imperialistic following world war 2 than before. Mainly as a reaction to the fact that World War 2 proved we weren’t isolated.

[Mickey Rat]

Also, that we could not trust the Europeans to not screw the pooch again without the US at the head of the Western Allies.

[NOYB2]

And there are eerie parallels to Russia today. It doesn’t justify either the actions of the Japanese or Russians, but what is happening was predictable and avoidable, as numerous foreign policy experts have warned for decades.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

This book has an idiot for its author. Looking at his first myth, that the two atom bombs shocked Japan into surrender, he goes off the rails right at the start, says the timing doesn’t match up. When Truman learned of the North Korean invasion of the south, and when Kennedy learned of the Russian missiles in Cuba, they were on the job within hours. Even McClellan was after Lee within 12 hours of finding the misplaced orders. Yet Japan’s decision to meet and discuss possible surrender was three days after Hiroshima, Nagasaki was bombed during the meeting, so obviously those two bombings had nothing to do with holding the meeting. But aHA! the USSR had started their war against Japan just 12 hours before! Coincidence? He thinks not!

And this after he first says that communications in Japan then were so damaged that full damage reports didn’t arrive for several days, then says the mayor phoned Tokyo within hours, and that the army people who sent that slow full report had actually phoned in the pertinent details on the 8th!

So much for consistency.

I think what annoys me the most is not his inconsistency, but trying to equate US communications and transportation in 1862(!), 1950 and 1962 with Japan in the summer of 1945. The McClellan 1862 one is especially bizarre.

[Mickey Rat]

I recently finished Ian Toll’s “Twilight of the Gods”, a history of the naval war in the Pacific Theater. It has a very interesting account of all the factors that led Japan to surrender when they did. The seeming oddness of the timing had much to do with Japan’s political culture at the time with the need to come to a consensus before making major decisions. The atomic bombings were a major factor in the decisions as well as the Soviet invasion, but there were still a significant faction holding to an idea of fighting to the last Japanese as the more honorable end.

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Isn’t it time we had world peace? Let’s do it. And what’s this about world hunger? Why is the world so hungry? Let’s feed everyone already!

[Mike Laursen]

We could get a bunch of famous musicians together and make a video!

[The Encogitationer]

Two percent of the U.S. population 0roduces enough food to feed a Planet, with much waste to spare. If people are starving, it is because of politics, not supply.

[NOYB2]

Explain how that works when the US accounts for at most 20% of world agricultural production.

Furthermore, looking at the percentage of Americans working in agriculture doesn’t mean that only that percentage are necessary to produce that output. US agriculture can only be so productive because it has the resources and labor of the entire US economy behind it and plenty of natural inputs, foremost arable land. If you just double the number of agricultural workers, you don’t double the output. Labor is not the limiting factor for US food production.

[The Encogitationer]

And in order for everyone to “Coexist,” everyone has to recognize everybody else’s reight to just “Exist.” Notc something you’re seeing from the Islamic world, the remaining Communist States, feuding tribal warlords in Africa, or from Revanchist Putin.

[NOYB2]

You should look at a history book sometime and see how many countries the US has invaded and occupied.

[I, Woodchipper]

How, exactly, would one go about doing this?

[A Thinking Mind]

Just make nuclear weapons illegal. Problem solved.

[Nobartium]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Nuclear weapons are only hated because they are very efficient at killing. No different to the transition of bow’s and guns. In fact, the left is still bitter over the latter. Until nukes get replaced by even better killing machines, they will continue to exist. Bring on the anti-matter bombs.

[Mike Laursen]

They are not just better at killing. They are the only weapons that can destroy civilization itself.

[Rich]

*** rising intonation ***

What about (some) bioweapons?

[Mike Laursen]

Maybe similar potential, but they don’t damage infrastructure, or wipe out great cultural works like architecture and art, etc.

[The Encogitationer]

See the episodes of Life After People. Whole lots of human creations would turn to ruin easily without a human presence.

[Mike Laursen]

Good point.

[BYODB]

Pretty sure the next big thing is going to be robotic troops. It’s the ultimate expression of economic warfare.

Sure, the civilian casualties will be massive since it’s doubtful a self-driving autonomous killing machine will be any better than a Tesla at recognizing small differences but at least there won’t be any reporters on the ground covering it because no blood will be shed by the ‘peacekeepers’.

[Sheldonius Rex]

Fun fact. That dark blob at the base of the mushroom cloud is the 43,000 ton USS Saratoga. A WW2 aircraft carrier. Yes, she is vertical. That is her stern pointing up in the air.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I believe you are mistaken. I’d like to see something more than your word for this.

[BYODB]

An interesting read in terms of how many times this ship was almost sunk, including tanking an atomic blast only to finally sink to a second atomic blast.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The force of the explosion lifted the vessel out of the water, knocked everything off her flight deck and knocked most of her funnel onto the flight deck.

Says nothing about being vertical, and the damage listed is incompatible with being lifted vertically out of the water.

ETA that if she had been vertical, her funnel would not have stayed on her flight deck.

[BYODB]

Could be, wasn’t necessarily trying to verify the above claim merely saying that it’s an impressive amount of hits on a ship that didn’t sink until the 2nd nuke they threw at it.

[Brian The Adequate]

IMHO the primary fallacy in the pro abolition side is the failure to understand that while there is limited to no military value for nuclear weapons in a world that has thousands of them in the hands of multiple competing powers, that is not so in a world where one power has more than 1 such weapon and all other powers have none. Assume all the nuclear powers were on board with abolition and everyone disarms completely, except that Russia manages to secretly keep 10 mobile launchers with a total of 50 warheads. Then suddenly nuclear weapons have tremendous military value to a ruthless aggressor sociopath, blow up 5 enemy cities with one missile, demand unconditional surrender or 45 more cities get destroyed. What choice then would the US President or the head of the EU have except to surrender?

[Barrie]

Nuclear weapons haven’t killed anyone in over 75 years, it seems like it would make more sense to get rid of conventional weapons.

[Utkonos]

Taking a day trip to La La Land, are we? Oh, very well….
You know what else it’s time to eliminate?

[Mickey Rat]

Russia is right now fighting a war of conquest in Ukraine that appears to be going quite badly, at least from the perspective that Ukraine was going to be a pushover that would fall to Russia’s conventional forces very quickly. Last week, Putin issued threats about using nukes because that is credible threat to the rest of the world. You are going to convince the curent Russian government to give up nuclear weapons…how? Why would they agree to such a thing? As a practical matter, this seems impossible, because nuclear weapons at least have a use as a deterrent against direct attack. That will never be untrue, to think otherwise, is utopian fantasy.

[Agammamon]

Unilateral elimination is stupid and worldwide disarmament will never happen.

Think of it on the small scale – would you give up your gun? No.

Would you give up you gone if everyone else did too? Fuck no! Because now I can be king of the world.

[Panhandle]

I think this article exists just to give people something to comment on. The world will never be without Nuclear weapons. Period.

[CE]

This was the plot of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, I think. Caped do-gooder gets rid of all nukes, then the aliens show up and we can’t stop them.

[tlapp]

Ukraine gave them up when they gained their independence. Didn’t work out very well for them.

[geometrydash]

Amazing post. In the eventuality that you are unable to open your website, then I will refer you to one article about geometry dash read this site and get this information.

[Edmund Burke's Hastings spy]

Is it time to eliminate guns? Well,how did the New Mexico governor do?

Israel had Grisham-style gun laws BUT then there was reality and killing and criminals ..
Dec 6, 2023 — Israel Has Seen Over 250000 New Firearm License Applications Since the October 7 Attack, Which Is More Than the Last 20 Years Combined.

HI, I’m here to kill your family…okay, but i think I should go get a gun new….[ how do you think that ends ]

[JesseAz]

No, just points out how susceptible he is to fear mongering. Explains his covid stance as well.

[The Encogitationer]

And some individuals know that it makes no difference whether you die by stones, arrows, gunpowder, or radioisotopes.

You have but one life to spend defending the Freedom and Pursuit of Happiness that makes that Life distinctly human and worth living.

A certain nuclear power-broker is facing millions of those individuals right now, and millions more that support them. That nuclear power-broker isn’t holding up too well.

How ’bout them irradiated apples, Putineer? 🙂

[NOYB2]

It’s people like you that drag us into destructive wars, and people like you will cause the first nuclear war. And you’ll still blame it on others.