Normally, nuclear weapons should guarantee the inviolability of any country that possesses them. a country that dares to attack and invade the territory of a nuclear-armed country runs the risk of destruction, even mutual destruction if the attacking country itself possesses nuclear weapons.
For these reasons, I don't believe that nuclear-armed countries can really see their security threatened.
Why do nuclear-armed countries still seek to guarantee their security?
11.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
"Nuclear-armed countries continue to seek to guarantee their security for several reasons, despite possessing nuclear weapons. Here are some key factors:
Deterrence: One of the primary reasons for possessing nuclear weapons is to deter potential adversaries. The concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) suggests that if both sides have the capability to inflict catastrophic damage on each other, neither is likely to initiate a nuclear conflict. The fear of devastating retaliation serves as a deterrent against aggression.
National Security: Nuclear weapons are often considered a crucial component of a country's national security strategy. They provide a strong and credible defense against potential external threats, and possessing them may deter conventional as well as nuclear aggression.
Strategic Autonomy: Having nuclear weapons enhances a country's strategic autonomy. It allows nations to pursue their interests without the fear of coercion or external intervention. The possession of nuclear capabilities can provide a level of independence in decision-making and protect against potential interference by other nations.
Great Power Status: Nuclear weapons are often seen as a symbol of great power status. Countries with nuclear capabilities are typically accorded greater influence on the global stage and are taken more seriously in international relations. This perception can contribute to a nation's overall security by bolstering its diplomatic and strategic position.
Regional Stability: Some countries may acquire nuclear weapons to establish regional stability by balancing power dynamics with neighboring nations. The presence of a credible nuclear deterrent can discourage regional conflicts and contribute to maintaining peace.
Preventing Regime Change: Nuclear weapons can act as a deterrent against attempts to bring about regime change. The fear of a nuclear response may dissuade other nations from attempting to forcibly alter the political leadership of a nuclear-armed state.
Insurance Against Unforeseen Threats: Countries may view nuclear weapons as a form of insurance against unpredictable and unforeseen threats. While the probability of nuclear use is intended to be low, possessing such weapons can be seen as a way to ensure security in the face of evolving geopolitical uncertainties."
Lets take Russia as Example A. Why are they losing in Ukraine right now if owning nuclear weapons is enough to "win" any war? Ukraine has even attacked and occupied pre-war Russian territory, yet outside of threats of nuclear strikes they have actually not done it and probably never will nuke Ukraine over this war.
While having nukes does provide a very strong level of protection but only really for.. lets call it the top level of threats. It protects you from a war against USA for example. It does not however give you protection at a lower level of threat, like the war in Ukraine or against terrorists or whatever.
You will still need to have other tools at your disposal to respond to these threats that does not warrant the launch of a nuke. Things like a strong army, alliances or diplomatic power over other countries for example. Otherwise you will still be open to these forms of attacks such as trade sanctions or indeed terrorist strikes.
This is the reason most countries does not feel like they need nukes, because it only provides protection against a very limited scope of threats which may or may not be very relevant to their situation. If it was just a big "I WIN" button then every country would go for it and nukes would be flying far more regularly.
I think French military doctrine includes a modest you are pissing us off first strike. We haven't seen a nuclear exchange fortunately so we can't have much understanding of it. Would the French warning strike work or provoke a full on retaliatory strike?
If the US and Russia descended into a nuclear exchange, would they also take out China to avoid future global Chinese hegemony? Maybe US and Russia in that circumstance would jointly clobber China.
We are seeing more grey zone operations. Like the Chinese ship dragging its anchor through Finnish gas pipeline and cables. Should Russian troops launching into Swalki gap provoke a nuclear exchange or is it just going to be a conventional response? What is a sufficient provocation for a nuclear response.
I am picking on France because it is the continental European nuclear power. If Russian tanks rolled into Paris would the French people say this is insufferable we'll take the nukes. Or might it be more like WW2? Both UK and the US have a sea barrier so it is different
I have read that during the cold war there was sophisticated strategy but all those warriors have retired now.
So dunno Julie. Not so sure nuclear armed countries are immune from attack.
It is not so much whether invasion justifies a nuclear response but a question of would a nuclear response be made?
Realistically what percentage of the French people - Gen Z in particular - would vote for a nuclear death if one Russian boot steps on French soil? We aren't post WW2 anymore.
I could see a scenario of the French gov't issuing strong irrevocable warnings and GenZ massing on the streets in response. People won't get a vote but they will get to riot and burn cars etc.
Do you think the West has enough gumption any more? The credibility of nuclear weapons is founded on this.
Well, once again, if we follow your reasoning, nuclear weapons are worthless. Because if we don't use nuclear weapons under these conditions, they're useless.
Well, this is a complex theory, despite it sounding simple. There are different types of nuclear weapons, most simply broken down to strategic and tactical. Strategic is what most people think of when they think of nuclear weapons - large rockets or missiles shooting out of silos or submarines or bombs dropped from strategic bombers, to annihilate a city. Then there are the tactical weapons like torpedos, artillery, or even “backpack” nukes for taking out a specific target such as an aircraft carrier or logistics center.
Nuclear weapons only really provide defense against other nuclear weapons, in a strategic sense. The tactical nukes could potentially be used but also, equally, destroy the very land you may be trying to conquer or defend.
Also, war has shifted somewhat since the last big one (WWII) where we tend to be fighting ideological fights more than national ones. Our enemies and allies live amongst each other as an integrated society much more than they did in WWII. The use of massively indiscriminate weapon systems have become more complex and offer a less desirable outcome.
Because most people wouldn't nuke a country based on a few bad eggs. Like we wouldn't just nuke a country known for terrorists, because not everyone there is terrorists we aren't going to murder tons of innocent people just to get rid of a bad group. Therefore those groups still exist and we need security outside of nukes to stop them. And don't get it wrong, this ain't just talking about the obvious places this is talking about everywhere since all countries can and do have extremist groups and agenda's.
And no one wants mutual destruction, you give Russia nukes you give Ukraine nukes ya know what happens? They have ground wars instead of nuking each other because they would rather fight like a normal war than press a big red button assuring both lose. If you were a leader of a country even if losing the war would you hit the button? Knowingly killing millions of innocents in their country and wiping your own? Or would you rather just surrender saving millions of lives even if ultimately the bad side to you won.
All countries must as its citizens, follow a rule of minimum force. Yes a country could retaliate with targeted nuclear strikes on an invading country, however it would then either be globally ostracised or be hit hard with a nuclear response. For example, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, in theory (although it would never have done) the UK could have targeted a city or a few airbases and nuked them. That would have been the wrong approach, so they assembled a force and retook the islands by using its military forces.
Suppose you have all the weapons in the world at your disposal. They are still not going to protect you from cancer or some other lethal illness.
The point is that weapons are designed to kill certain things in certain ways and, yes, to deter. But there will always be new kinds of weapons that may not be detectable or that can be defended against.
So, security is always limited when faced with the advancement of technology.
I know. I used to work in a defense think tank. One half of my group was working on new and improved ways of defeating the US or its enemies. The other half of my group was working on defeating what that first group came up with.
Yes, but no advance makes nuclear weapons impotent. So no matter how well you have attack weapons, undetectable etc, if you attack a nuclear-armed country, you can always be destroyed.
The day there is a 100% effective defense system against nuclear weapons, the situation will be different.
Terrorists cannot seriously threaten the national security of a country, they can only conduct raids, but they do not have the same Impact that a nation state could have.
Imagine a nuke is like having a tiny little knife the size of your pinky. If you stab a tiny animal with it that animal will die. You don't even have to aim for a vital organ and it's probably going to bleed out and die. Now think about taking on a Tiger with that. It's going to eat you & use that knife as a toothpick. So the size of the enemy you take on & it's ability to bring down the wrath of the heavens on you matters. Of course if you're really clever you could get 20 of your friends with their little knives and you might be able to take out the Tiger. But you probably wouldn't have the balls to even try.
Countries with small numbers of nukes have them like trophies and to say, 'you may wreck our country but we'll stab you in the eye.' It's not useful to use those small number of nukes if the user wants to keep their country.
you're missunderstanding how nuclear weapons work. for example let's make a theoretic scenario, where texas wants to separate from the USA and let's assume both countries have nuclear weapons.
what do you think happens if the USA drops a nuke on Texas? that's like firing a bazooka at a person that's in a room with you. there's a good chance the blast will hit you pretty damn bad yourself. so that's just one of the many intricacies of nuclear weapons that make them very ineffective in actual real world war fare.
it's not as simple as "own a nuke and nobody can beat you at war". cause there's so many different kinds of warfare these days. a big thing is cyber war for example or psychological warfare that is facilitated by the internet. they can be much more effective and making the opposing side hurt.
a nuke only helps against countries that are A far away physically and B severely underdeveloped compared to your country.
and also: what do you think will a nuke be able to do against decentralized or completely unorganized acts of ideologically driven terrorism? if you can't pinpoint the threat to a specific location, a nuke won't do shit for you.
I think every country has realized nuclear weapons are not an effective form of security because of it's massive indiscriminate destruction when used. Anyone who uses one in modern times will be sanctioned, exiled and maybe destroyed. No one wants to risk it.
So, that's left many countries to continue in the age old art of imperialism through geopolitics, global economic domination and physical influence. Lately, China has been the biggest outward proponent of imperialism by giving massive loans or development contracts to countries. They're building highways, railways, seaports, and military bases much like the USA, and before them, the European Empires. China's also building entire industries and supply chains in countries, all on the stipulation of predatory loans or relinquishing control of territory to China. Many other countries are stepping up global power these days.
because then they will never have to use them. All it takes is one crazed person/leader that wants to start a pissing contest and it's goodbye cruel world. They are more of a deterrent, you shoot a nuke at us, you will be wiped off the face of the planet along with everyone and everything else. Hopefully no one will be that stupid and go here, hold my beer and watch this. Otherwise, we are all just dust in the wind. We came pretty close during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and we used 2 of them to end WW2. I think or hope that people got the hint of what can happen, and considering now the power that just one of them has I really hope no one ever has to find out. That will be a very sad day.
Nukes are a last resort and they aren't a deterrent if your opponents are fanatical lunatics who aren't afraid to all die. Imagine if Hamas and Hezballah were somehow able to utterly defeat the IDF and were about to remove all the Jews between the river and the sea; that Israel might just nuke Mecca, Gaza, Tehran, and Beirut as a final gesture of defiance wouldn't stop the Muslims from trying because they think their God is on their side and if they die in atomic fire they will each get 72 virgins.
Because a state can reduce your freedom of action without invading it.
Imagine if China managed to seize Taiwan, and became powerful enough to project its power into North America, not the USA, but North America. Well, the USA would only be able to project its power if China allowed it to, and its trade would then also be subject to China. Admittedly, in this situation, the USA has kept its territories intact, but its freedom of action no longer exists.
Exactly the same thing would happen if Russia dominated the continent.
In addition to the reason you already stated in the first paragraph, there are always those smaller "renegade" countries that have dirt-cheap ways of screwing things up. A three-dollar laser, for example, can blind a pilot, so, the ability to attack/defend is not limited to the nukes, per se.
I know it's hard for a death cult commie like you to understand, but all problems can't be resolved by destroying the entire planet with a rain of endless nuclear bombs on the only planet we have colonized.
Because no country wants to be the one to open Pandora's box. The consequences of a nuclear weapon being used are immense, even if for no other reason than that using a nuke on your neighbor means they'll be justified in using a nuke on you.
Actually, the general agreement is that they would NOT be justified. The death toll and impact caused by the nuclear weapons is so fast and so large (and so indiscriminate) that the invading army would need a long time to do anywhere near the same amount of damage with conventional weapons. The international community would basically frown on anyone using nukes short of another WW2 scenario, where you have two societies that a hell bent on destroying each other for years on end.
because we in west would only use atom bomb if atom bomb attacked us. so for the regular weapons need security. land soldiers war planes war ships etc.
Not everything warrants throwing a nuke. If you make those kind of threats over something minor, you look like a fool, because everyone knows you won't actually use it.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
