Is a nuclear war winnable ?

Question

In 1945 nuclear fission bombs based on U-235 and plutonium were used against Japan, that spelled
the end of WW 2.

Also at the time the thermonuclear bomb, based on fusion, was not developed.

That must have been the end of the period when a nuclear war was winnable.

Currently there are around 14900 nuclear weapons in active state, and that is enough to destroy the world several times over.

During the Cold War the START (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) talks and NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) were popular methods used to exercise control over nuclear arsenals.

Even today nuclear weapons, launchable as ICBM's and IRBM's, pose a grave threat to civilized society.

Is this a wake up call for the world that a nuclear war today is not winnable ?

Answer 1

That's the whole point of MAD , (mutual assured destruction) , The political doctrine that has kept the first use of nuclear weapons from happening. A nuclear war might happen between Pakistan and India, or perhaps Israel and Iran.. their nuclear weapons are thought not to be thermonuclear in nature but are of a similar type used on Japan. The limited use wouldn't endanger mankind since these countries only have a limited number of weapons, So in a sense a nuclear war of this type could be won, But if the big players , Russia , USA, China , were to fight a war using nuclear weapons then the aftermath would be disastrous for those countries and the planet in general.

Answer 2

We all know one can not win a nuclear war and our polliticians ( I certainly hope so ) are all mightily aware of that fact. So, why do we keep nukes ? That's a good question. Isaac Newton, the great phisicist used to say: the body is not moving in two cases : 1. in case there is no force to make it move and 2. in case all the forces are in equilibrium. With this World, I think the second case should be aplied. As long as we have nukes, no major war Will break out. Destroy nukes and we'll go fighting WW1 and WW2 style again, sad but true !

Answer 3

If there is a world war III with nuclear weapons I am sure world war IIII will be fought with sticks and stones!

Answer 4

Hardly anyone ever thought a nuclear war was 'winnable' after roughly the mid 1960s. The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to make it clear that the consequences of a global thermonuclear war would be so horrendous there would be no possible reason why anyone would be prepared to risk one.



That doesn't mean there couldn't be relatively small-scale wars fought between nuclear powers, such as India-Pakistan or Israel-Iran (if the latter ever decides to build weapons). The countries involved would be destroyed and even this would risk global escalation but it would be slightly less unthinkable.

Answer 5

No. Which is why onew has not happened yet.

Answer 6

It's not a wake up call.

Everyone has always known that a nuclear war is not winnable.



Hence MAD.

Answer 7

Yes, if we wear shin pads.

Answer 8

No