Can you confidently say that Nuclear Weapons to never again be used for war?

[Jay Sea]

excerpt from On the Origin of God(s) by Means of Supernatural Selection

Could nuclear weapons ever be used again in the future? By asking the question in a serious way, we will have to contend with some very complicated issues. An affirmative answer to our question might be unthinkable to many, after all, nuclear weapons have not been used since the end of World War II; although regional wars and conflicts were fought out at various times throughout the world, most developed nations have enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity; while many hope for this state of peace to continue, others believe they have good reasons to think that nuclear weapons will never again be used intentionally.

We acknowledge the significant progress that various nations have made towards nuclear disarmament and reduction, and the impact that diplomatic and geopolitical balancing may have had in preventing other nations from developing these weapons. We acknowledge that generally speaking, nations and governments tend to act rationally in self-preservation and cooperatively towards common interests. Many stakeholders reasonably conclude that the cost of using nuclear weapons is too high and impractical for achieving any meaningful objectives, often summarized by the statement that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought". We acknowledge the importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty amongst other international laws and customs as important milestones towards disarmament and security. In sum, we acknowledge there exists a variety of safety mechanisms designed and implemented to ensure nuclear safety.

But despite all that, many of us are not so convinced, and are left with lingering questions: are the net effect of these mechanisms sufficient in all cases? Do they guarantee our safety from future nuclear disasters with absolute effectiveness? Or could the safeguards eventually fail despite our best efforts?

 

[Hollowman]

Putin's been threatening to use them, I kind of hope he does.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I'm sure Tik Tok brain rot or something like that will cause whoever the world leaders are in 2080 or later to be stupid enough to initiate nuclear war without hesitation. Those guys are probably watching it right now from their baby iPads.

 

[DarkRange55]

One of the things that trump did that I was most displeased with was his unilateral withdrawal from the INF (intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty).

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

U.S. Withdraws From Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

The United States has officially withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, an agreement with the Russian Federation that limited the types of weapons systems the nations involved

www.defense.gov

It remains a constant possibility but low-probability. Iran/Israel is currently most worrying, Russia tactical or N Korea not impossible (esp. if the US is stupid), India/Pakistan seems a bit less likely now but still possible.

Or something got fucked up and there was a mistake and everyone thought that somebody launched something. They really didn't or something like that and we end up nuking each other all on accident but the chances of that happening are very low. However, the time window in the past for such incident has been 10 minutes to verify, which has saved the world on multiple occasions and that window may be going down to two minutes, which may not be enough time to verify, but who knows

By the time off-world colonies are self-sufficient we will be past the danger.

The doomsday clock was a good idea, but it is a bit theatrical in its exaggeration of the (very real) dangers.

Doomsday Clock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Doomsday Clock - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

It is 89 seconds to midnight.

thebulletin.org

 

[HarryCobean]

Nuclear weapons will be used again, of course they will.

 

[L'absent]

They will be used against some country without nuclear weapons. No country with nuclear weapons will attack a country with nuclear weapons.

 

[Pluto]

 

[mattoman]

I highly doubt any country will use nuclear weapons. If that happens, then it's just a mutual destruction. The threat of being nuked works as well.

 

[brokenbirdy]

I've recently read a few academic articles on a topic similar to this! They were about state sponsored terrorism, and brought up the possibility of states selling nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. I personally don't think that would be too likely to happen though, as the state would have to have a lot of trust in the terrorist group, and have goals that align closely.

 

[unknown_xav]

I think it's possible, but just that the possibility is very low. There are a lot of things that have happened in human history which many didn't expect or predict. And at end of the day we never know who one day will get hold of nuclear weapons or be in command in which ever country. Sometimes it just takes the right set of events, and environment that make that one person or group click even when everyone else doesn't think it will happen.

 

[red24]

They will be used in our lifetime.

 

[Redacted24]

I doubt any deliberate use by an organized state as part of a declared war.
More likely scenario is a use by malicious actors, or an overreaction by a minor official with control external to formal command authorization.
There have been a few near misses on use of nuclear weapons throughout the past six decades - we just passed Vasili Arkhipov's birthday, he singlehandedly stopped nuclear war between the USSR and the USA in 1962.

All it takes is one to go off and those that have them to overreact to incinerate this place.

 

[ShatteredSerenity]

I believe it's a lot more likely that smaller tactical nuclear weapons will be used rather than traditional strategic nuclear weapons that can destroy entire cities. In reality strategic nuclear weapons are practically unusable since using one will trigger mutual assured destruction, whereas using a strategic nuclear weapon against a more limited military target would not trigger the same kind of response and possible escalation.

That's not to say tactical nuclear weapons aren't incredibly destructive, they can still be several times more powerful than the A-bombs dropped in WWII. Not only are they vastly more powerful than conventional weapons, they generate radiation that leaves the blast area uninhabitable. Most of the radioactive products have short half-lives, so impacted areas may be somewhat inhabitable again in a matter of weeks and months, but it would take many years to fully restore the area.

Using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield is uncharted territory and it could go a lot of ways militarily. If both sides possessed them and used them it could be a very nasty war. The worst case scenario is it escalates into a full strategic nuclear war which could impact the entire world population.

I think it's pretty likely, or perhaps almost inevitable that we'll see tactical nuclear weapons used at some point. However everybody's interest is still in avoiding mutual destruction, so I expect it would not escalate to the apocalyptic scenarios that are possible with strategic nuclear weapons. It still could have terrible consequences and upset geopolitical stability.

 

[lamy's sacred sleep]

A part of me wishes for human exctinction, but also I want to say hopefully not.

cognitive dissonance going crazy