6. August 1945

[Crni Vuk]

When the time stood still. For a second at least. And then with a big bang a new age started. The nuclear or atomic age.

What I am talking about ? Well for those which forgot or never learned. The 6. August of 1945 marks one of the most important and yet as well controversial points of human history.

The first and only use of nuclear weapons in a war. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and a few days later 9. August on Nagasaki

Well. The fascination and yet horror of the nuclear weapons explains it self. And still it never stops to be fascinating for a fallout fan-page anyway. But already shortly after the use of those weapons it was already controversial with those which believe that it stoped the war and those which have been frightened by the effects.

Something which continues during the cold war even today. The evolution of technology to its extreme increasing in size and with incredible power.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTRxXvQY0s&feature=fvst[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA&feature=related[/youtube]

so the 6. August is the day of the bomb. Or love. Either way you look at it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0[/youtube]

So what ever if you think it is bad, wrong or just fascinating. Letz just remember. - and that the cold war never went hot ...

Maybe you'll think of me when you are all alone ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Mr Krepe]

I think nuclear bombs although hugely devastating to the victim, should (in theory) prevent major wars in the future between super-powers. Because, it's MAD literally, with all that mutually assured destruction, who really wants a war? For example, if China were to actually declare war on USA, China would remember USA had massive nuclear bombs and missiles; so thus would back out of the declaration of war. Sorry if post is a bit jumbly i'm very tired.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Though some believe the situation today is potentially more dangerous then compared to most conflicts in the cold war. Or at least it might be in the future more dangerous. Considering how many nations today either possess nuclear reactors or plan to get some in the future - and its not a coinsidence that most of those reactors are types which can be used to develope nuclear weapons. And you can not completely rule out the possibility that new superpowers of the future (like Brazil) completely gave up the idea on developing nuclear weapons.

So in the future we might have less nuclear weapons in total but more smaller nations could have their hands on the button which is increasing the danger to see such weapons used in rather local conflicts - Imagine a situation like between Pakistan and India of which both have nuclear weapons and either the one or other side lead by extremists there is also the rather tense relation between Israel and Iran, South and North Korea etc.

It might happen that those weapons see use at some point. Who knows.


*Edit
Regardless of the fact that nuclear weapons probably prevented a third world war we whould not forget the effects of the tests which have been done by many nations.

One has just to ask those poor GIs which have been used as test. Or the people of St. George (Utah). People still suffer today from the many nuclear tests.

 

[Mr Krepe]

In some ways yes it is slightly nerve-racking, as smaller nations may lose rationale in their pursue of defeating their enemy. But nations such as USA, Russia, China, and NATO countries have more than enough rationale to realise nuclear weapons will nearly always result in a catastrophic problem (that word is very light I know, but my vocabulary dies towards the end of the day.

 

[Crni Vuk]

you have the right avatar for it.

Think about it.

 

[Sabirah]

I would say everyone should have nukes, but then jerks like Mubarak or Qaddafi would shoot it at the United States.

 

[Mr Krepe]

you have the right avatar for it.

Think about it.

You gotta' admit he's a funny guy, but I hope to the love of god he abdicates or something along those lines before his country gains (working) nuclear arms.

 

[Hassknecht]

I would say everyone should have nukes, but then jerks like Mubarak or Qaddafi would shoot it at the United States.

I don't know about that. Poorer countries lack the capacity to launch a sufficient first strike against a superpower and they know that the inevitable retaliation will completely devastate their country.
Having a few bombs is abolutely useless against a superpower.
Instead, a lot of countries would like to launch their hypothetical nukes against Israel, although it's pretty obvious that Israel has superior nuclear capacities (of course, not official).
Their submarines are capable of launching nuclear torpedoes so they have a second strike capability.
It's pointless for non-superpowers to use nukes, it would always end their countries.

 

[alec]

The Tsar bomb was a piece of art. It's my favourite explosion ever.

 

[AskWazzup]

The Tsar bomb was a piece of art. It's my favourite explosion ever.

I'd say that these ones might just have a slight edge on the Tsar (but i love it too nonetheless):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYbVQY0cBWk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVJZZFB5wOs[/youtube]

 

[Crni Vuk]

I would say everyone should have nukes, but then jerks like Mubarak or Qaddafi would shoot it at the United States.

I don't know about that. Poorer countries lack the capacity to launch a sufficient first strike against a superpower and they know that the inevitable retaliation will completely devastate their country.
Having a few bombs is abolutely useless against a superpower.
Instead, a lot of countries would like to launch their hypothetical nukes against Israel, although it's pretty obvious that Israel has superior nuclear capacities (of course, not official).
Their submarines are capable of launching nuclear torpedoes so they have a second strike capability.
It's pointless for non-superpowers to use nukes, it would always end their countries.

Thats not the point.

The idea of possessing a nuclear bomb which you can use in any conflict is not to use it against one of the large cities in the US or even Europe. That is more or less propaganda.

The idea is that those weapons can give you a huge effect on the battlefield. Frankly if the US is losing now 1000 or 100 000 Soldiers they could not care less when it comes to the economical side of it in a full conflict. They lost much more in the world Wars. So in other words even if you manage to kill 1 million of their population or 1 million of their soldiers it "probably" will not hurt their overall strike capability - The Soviets lost more then 20 million people in WW2 and yet they managed to overthrow the German military on the east front but that is a different story.

But most nations particularly the US could not afford the political effect of such high loses. Americans today in general are not able to take very well flags returning home instead of Soldiers - but that is true for many because you have to find a reason for those killed and it should sound better then "for oil". And that is a political issue. People don't have trouble with the patriotism but they have a problem with their people dieing 10 000 miles away (not just since vietnam).

If nations like Korea or the Iran have nuclear weapons even smaller ones (the size here does not matter) they are somewhat an insurance in the eyes of the military. Hands down regardless of all the propangada and talking military leaders either of Iran, Korea or similar nations are not idiots and they know any attack on the US, Europe, China, Russia etc. would be completely useless and would just lead to their own destruction. But the message with nuclear weapons is clear though. "We can not attack you. But if you attack us expect high loses". This situation has become worse after Afghanistan and Iraq where military actions by the forces in those areas against the US have shown no effect.

Planes, tanks, infantry etc. all of those weapons can be rather easily destroyed or disabled by a superior force. But against nuclear weapons one way or another there is no real safe protection in a warfare. Or to go a bit more in detail. There is no way to avoid casualties on the battlefield. And as such nuclear weapons will eventually force any superior aggressor (regardless if the US, China etc.) to consider again if it is worth to start military actions. Here those bombs have a real deterrence

 

[Courier]

So what ever if you think it is bad, wrong or just fascinating. Letz just remember. - and that the cold war never went hot ...

Do Vietnam or Korea ring a bell?

 

[Crni Vuk]

was Korea or Vietnam a World War ? Soviet union and USA sending nuclear weapons in their direction ? Does a bell ring ?

You need to remember what "Cold War" means.

Wars like Vietnam, Korea or Afghanistan (Soviets) are proxy wars. The Cold War becoming a "hot" war is the understanding of a full scale conflict between the USA and the Soviet Union. Or if you want the NATO and the Warsaw pakt.

I always thought that is some basic knowledge.

 

[Courier]

was Korea or Vietnam a World War ? Soviet union and USA sending nuclear weapons in their direction ? Does a bell ring ?

You need to remember what "Cold War" means.

Wars like Vietnam, Korea or Afghanistan (Soviets) are proxy wars. The Cold War becoming a "hot" war is the understanding of a full scale conflict between the USA and the Soviet Union. Or if you want the NATO and the Warsaw pakt.

I always thought that is some basic knowledge.

Just because nuclear weapons weren't used doesn't mean there wasn't any fighting. The term "Cold War" is a political one, just like Korea was a "Police action" rather than a "War".

 

[Hassknecht]

The losses wouldn't be as huge as one might think.
Most likely, a country like Iran would have nuclear weapons of tactical yield, let's say 20kt TNT equivalent.
The invading force would likely rely heavily on armored vehicles in the beginning.
Tanks and APCs stay mobile (but not combat worthy) at 500m from Ground Zero (the bomb was detonated at 600m altitude), and sustain only light damage at 1000m (this is froma book from the 70's, modern vehicles might be even more durable).
Infantry without any cover of course sustains heavy damage up to 2000m from Ground Zero.
To stop an invasion the country would need quite a few nuclear warheads and working delivery systems to do any significant damage.
Of course, launch sites would most likely be destroyed before the ground invasion.
So, not that I want countries like Iran or North Korea to have nuclear weapons, but I just don't think they can do significant damage without risking total annihilation.

 

[Mr Krepe]

was Korea or Vietnam a World War ? Soviet union and USA sending nuclear weapons in their direction ? Does a bell ring ?

You need to remember what "Cold War" means.

Wars like Vietnam, Korea or Afghanistan (Soviets) are proxy wars. The Cold War becoming a "hot" war is the understanding of a full scale conflict between the USA and the Soviet Union. Or if you want the NATO and the Warsaw pakt.

I always thought that is some basic knowledge.

Just because nuclear weapons weren't used doesn't mean there wasn't any fighting. The term "Cold War" is a political one, just like Korea was a "Police action" rather than a "War".

I'm sure the reason it was called the Cold War due to their being no actual conflict between the two major belligerents (USSR/USA), there were minor conflicts, but none of them included direct or indirect military action against each other.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...

As said. The potential damage isn't the question and very difficult to estimate. And that is what makes it so powerful in deterrence.

Nuclear weapons have always been just that. There is even a huge disagreement what ever if a nuclear world war would have meant the end of humanity or not. But almost everyone agrees that it would have at least meant the end to the civilization/world as how people knew it (back then).

The unpredictable nature of those weapons particularly long term effects (like radiation for example) might not rule out the possibilities of wars and invasions but it will make leaders like those in the US military (or other powerful nations) eventually averse to attacking an enemy which is ready to use nuclear weapons in some conflict.

Remember as I said. It is NOT a difference in the military if you have 1000 or 100 000 men dieing. This will NOT harm the military effectiveness of the US forces. But remember you have to explain those death soldiers to your population! And that is never easy! It can easily brake the neck of any president and/or politician. It was even difficult already in WW2. A situation where americans felt "right" to fight. And the military still didn't tell their own population always about every battle which contained high loses. Not during wartime. So a person like Obama or any other president will think twice before giving the order to attack someone who has nuclear weapons of any kind in his arsenal thinking about that he has to actually find a damn good reason latter to explain it to his people why they had to fight Abdulah in the deserte for the 20 000 or 50 000 dead american people. The situation is much more difficult when you suddenly with one strike have thousand of dead soldiers instead of the few which come home every day. - Think about how the situation is in Germany already and they dont face the same situation yet it always starts a controversial debate when 2-3 people die and the media is making it a big story. Now imagine 10 000 or even just 1000 German soldiers die in a single day. This would definitely leave some impression.

And the popular opinion is a very powerful force. It was not the military situation which forced the US out of Vietnam. It was their own population. Vietnam was a stalemate. But their military leaders didn't saw a reason to get out. But the war has become unacceptable and extremely unpopular. The same was true for Somalia in the 90s.

We should not assume that other nations are that stupid. For a force like the vietcong it was not important to "win". It was already enough if they simply don't lose. As strange as it sounds. But it worked for them in the end. When it comes just to military power alone the US might had enough resources to continue the war till today. But no one will accept that.

Just because nuclear weapons weren't used doesn't mean there wasn't any fighting. The term "Cold War" is a political one, just like Korea was a "Police action" rather than a "War".

Someone here doesn't know about the the meaning behind "Cold War". Not my job to educate you though. Either read about it on internet/books or leave it be. 90% of the people know what is meant when you say "Thx god the Cold war didn't go hot".

 

[Courier]

Someone here doesn't know about the the meaning behind "Cold War". Not my job to educate you though. Either read about it on internet/books or leave it be. 90% of the people know what is meant when you say "Thx god the Cold war didn't go hot".

Yeah I have relatives who fought in it, don't tell me there wasn't any fighting involved in the Cold War.

From wikipedia,

The Cold War (Russian: Холо́дная война́, Kholodnaya voĭna) was the continuing state from roughly 1946 to 1991 of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition between the Communist World – primarily the Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies – and the powers of the Western world, primarily the United States and its allies. Although the chief military forces never engaged in a major battle with each other, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, conventional and nuclear arms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race.

A proxy war or proxy warfare is a war that results when opposing powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly.

"Proxy" war or not, it's just false to say that the Cold War never went hot.


Edit: It's called the "Cold War" because it never erupted into full-scale conflict, not because there wasn't any conflict whatsoever.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well if you bring "emotions" in to this then it is pointless to talk about it anyway.

As said. People understand with a "hot" Cold war usualy the nuclear world war huge nato forces in battles with the armiees of the warsaw pakt on a global scale. As said. That is a public understanding. Your own definition may "differ". But that is not what I am talking about.

Still sorry to hear about your relatives though.

Edit: It's called the "Cold War" because it never erupted into full-scale conflict, not because there wasn't any conflict whatsoever.

I never made a claim the "Cold War" has not seen any conflicts.

 

[Courier]

well if you bring "emotions" in to this then it is pointless to talk about it anyway.

When did I bring emotions into it? All I said was that it's false to say that the Cold War never turned "Hot".

Edit: Nevermind, I see where you thought I was bringing emotions into it.

As said. People understand with a "hot" Cold war usualy the nuclear world war huge nato forces in battles with the armiees of the warsaw pakt on a global scale. As said. That is a public understanding. Your own definition may "differ". But that is not what I am talking about.

It never turned "Hot" on a worldwide scale which is why it's called the "Cold War". It did turn "Hot" however in several cases, it just never erupted into all out war.

Still sorry to hear about your relatives though.

Don't be, none of them died. I just said they fought. I have relatives who were in both the "cold" parts of the war (i.e. Berlin) and the "hot" parts (i.e. Vietnam/Korea). According to them there's a difference.