Is the world too PC to ever use nuclear weapons again?
I know MacArthurwanted to use them in Korea.
I remember hearing that we had nukes in Europe to drop on the Soviets if their troops came pouring out of Eastern Europe.
I remember hearing that one of the reasons we have so many mobile nukes (planes/subs) is for offensive purposes ands not just dropping on cities.
You might have a five million man army but it doesn't do any good if a nuclear weapon blows up over them and kills most of them.
People talk about war with China and I'm not scared. If up nuke an area the size of Texas you'll kill most of their population, production, and infrastructure.
I mean if China and India ever went to war, a few strategically placed nukes could kill a quarter of the world's population.
Will it never happen though? Is the world too scared for any country to do that again?
>>29544802
That won't happen.
Even Pakistan and India (two of the most shitty countries of the world) did not want to use them when they was in open conflict.
>>29544802
PC is probably the wrong term. Mostly no one wants to provoke a nuclear response and deal with the aftereffects of a nuclear exchange. If no one but the united states had ever managed to develop them, then they might be a little more likely to use them, but the ecological aspect makes them a pretty shit weapon to use if you want to keep using this planet for air and water and stuff. The people who die in a nuclear war from the direct effect will be lucky, the ones who die a slow poison death from contamination and fallout are the true victims.
Yes, whatever sheepshagger is in charge of pakistan wants to use nukes but in fear of SJWs and political corectness he has had to rethink his strategies
>>29545118
Topziz
>>29544802
>Forgetting about mutually-assured destruction
Conservatively China already has about 250 warheads in stockpile, India 110. That's more than enough to wreck whoever the hell fires their nukes at either countries.
Do you seriously think governments or military command would want to deal with the logistical nightmare managing the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust? Most essential services will be fucked. Society will largely collapse to pre-industrial levels. It's a Pyrrhic victory to whoever "wins".
You bet your ass that if the use of nukes can save more lives and money than the alternative, they will and should be used.
To this day if an American soldier gets wounded in combat, he gets a purple heart created in anticipation of the casualties we would receive during an invasion of mainland Japan. Odds are we have enough purple hearts left from that batch to last us another few decades even though they were created half a century ago.
Let that sink in- that is how many lives those bombs saved on the American side. There's no telling how many Japanese civilians and military would have died, but one can safely assume that if America invaded Japan instead of dropping the bombs, Japanese people would be more endangered than bald eagles. They were preparing to fight to the last man and women thought they would be better off killing their children and killing themselves afterwards rather than being captured.
>>29546459
But that's because Japan didn't have nukes in 1945.
Most major military targets now do and have retaliatory measures.
>too PC
>Nuclear weapons
I think /pol/ has broken you if you think we don't use nuclear weapons because of Tumblr
>>29546534
But do they have the ability to defend themselves from nukes?
That is the real question.
>>29546555
Better yet, does America or Russia have reliable defensive measures?
You're talking about, hypothetically, 50 to 100 ICBMs being fired at once. Intercepting all of them is impossible. Some of them are going to hit their mark anyway.
>>29546584
We probably don't, but with that bigass budget I hope they have something planned.
One word: Star Wars
http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml
>>29546584
oppenheimer said that defensive countermeasures just results in a high value strategic target receiving additional warheads to guarantee a kill. The result is someone lower on the list is saved a nuke.
>>29546555
Short answer: No.
Long answer: There are two nations on earth with some semblance of semi-reliable anti-ballistic missile systems, deployed on a very limited scale. They can cover a fraction of the incoming targets and basically, any country, including those two getting first-strike'd is fucking boned.
