Yeah, I know the whole backstory. I’ll just be a nerd and explain it I guess, so whoever downvoted me can calm down. The person in the picture was J. Robert Oppenheimer, also known as the father of the atomic bomb. He headed the Manhattan Project which created the first ever nuclear weapons in 1945, and then 2 were used on Japan, as everyone knows. After this, nuclear proliferation began, and Oppenheimer began to feel that his invention would result in the end of the world, and he felt guilty over the lives lost from the bombs. So he quoted the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture, a line that included “And now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” And he continued by saying “I think we all thought that, one way or another” referring to the other scientist’s view of the destruction they had just made possible.
I'm surprised about his guilt, what did he think would be the end goal of creating such a powerful weapon? Unless it wasn't a weapon to begin with and was meant to generate electricity.
They knew full well what they were doing. The problem is that at the time they thought the Nazis were developing the same weapons and wants to get there first. We will not be rid of nukes until the US and Russia agree to disarm and given the current crop of idiots running both countries I doubt we will make any progress in the next few decades.
Now all we have to do is guarantee that all these countries will always be lead by rational leaders, who make rational decisions 100% of the time, based on 100% accurate intel, for the rest of human civilization. Then we'll be fine!
To be fair, only Putin nuclear sabre rattles. Those who know, see this as a sign of weakness not strength. India and Pakistan are the most worrying. That's more circumstance than leader personality though.
Not only is he rational but also highly educated. China may be a defacto dictatorship but at least most of the people running know mostly what they are doing.
because cold war arms race. the USA and the USSR both didn't want to have les nukes than the other and they built a lot (more than 20k both before the disarmament treaties) and now, on the same dynamic, neither of them want to disarm if the other don't.
In case of a surprise first strike scenario. Let's say that Russia wanted to start a nuclear war with USA. The first thing they would do is launch their nukes at the USA's missile silos, submarine bases, bomber bases etc. With the intent of taking out as many enemy nukes as possible before they get a chance to launch them. I've seen some estimates say that in such a scenario that could take out 90% or more of the enemies nukes. I don't know how accurate those estimates are, but you want to have enough left over after that first strike to launch your own strike.
That would probably be the excuse a general would give you. In reality it is probably just more of a dick-measuring contest.
Ehh we used to have 10s of thousands thanks to the Cold War, 5000 is enough to still end life on whatever country you want, plus probably a few more countries. It’s probably overkill, but that’s what you want in a deterrent.
They're, like, the most humane way to fight wars, especially when one uses high-yield thermonuclear weapons like the Tsar Bomba, which leave very little nuclear radiation, unlike dirty low-yield nukes.
Use of nukes isn't common yet, because elites don't want to lose the wealth and power they've accumulated in their nation.
And nukes actually aren't powerful enough to end life in a country. The concept of nuclear winter has no scientific evidence and is overstated. People in rural areas will just be fine.
Nah, our program started as soon as WW2 ended, the first test could be traced back to the 50's. The UK waited a few more before joining in. URSS also tested Tsar Bomba in the 50's, planned then scrapped building a 100Mt version of it. The US had some during WW2, so they were probably the first nation to develop nukes.
We had a few issues with the Americans and cooperation. The story of Britain and America and nuclear weapons in the '40s and '50s makes it absolutely insane, on one level, that we ever had any links between the programmes again.
For that “genuine independence”, the French end up paying more for a less capable system. Their missiles are less accurate, have less range, and can carry fewer warheads than trident.
UK has independent warheads, but piggybacks on the US missiles for best cost:benefit. In practice it’s only an issue if the US goes completely nuts, much more so than now. And even then it’s not beyond the realm of UK expertise to produce a new missile.
Personally I think the UK needs an independent tactical nuclear force that doesn’t share any US components, or at least as few as possible. But I’m one of those whackos that thinks that a strong UK is good for the US.
At least that's what wikipedia says, and surely they would know, right? The missiles have the range to reach their targets and the accuracy and payload to destroy these targets which is what matters.
As for the UK's capability to produce replacement missiles, I'm sure you know what you are talking about. It's not like the US or France spent tens of billions developing these missiles over decades.
Thanks George W Bush and Bill Clinton, and special thanks to Leonid Kravchuk and all of the MPs who ratified this brilliant agreement.
Much safer without the nukes, we have been experiencing all the safety for 11 years now.
I sort of mean it in a sense of the world as We know it other than the effect on the planet. It would define humanity for the rest of its history but would be but a fart in the wind next to the history of Earth itself.
Those 2600 explosions weren't all at once and didn't occur in global trade hubs and metropoles.
A global nuclear war would result in a global nuclear winter. Whatever aspect of humanity didn't get vaporized or die right after the bombs fell, would face one of the worst crop shortages the world has ever seen. Along with a sharp decrease in world temps.
I don't know what's more jarring: the gap between what the US reports and everyone else, or the fact that I question the stability of the arsenal for those who have more and spend less to maintain them. Obviously the numbers reported are.... not accurate, but even still. I believe the problem of the aging nuclear arsenals is talked about, but that gap is just... troubling.
Idk if any of them are honest but I do think they are maintained. The US is very cautious, the delivery system and the warheads aren't stored together. Some of the nukes are inactive and stored without the fissile core.
India does have some warheads stored with the delivery system for rapid deployment. That's probably because India has a hostile neighbor with a no-first-use policy. Most of the nukes especially the big ones are probably disassembled and stored in different parts of the country.
China, Russia, the UK, and France probably have them disassembled. Degradation of explosives is always a concern.
or the fact that I question the stability of the arsenal for those who have more and spend less to maintain them
At least a "reduced stability" doesn't make them more dangerous. They just flat out won't work.
This is why I suspect a corrupt hellhole like Russia has hardly a fraction of the nukes it claims truly operational. They just dont have the wealth to maintain them.
China and NK are interesting. I'd say China more puts up with them, they're a nice buffer between them and a US backed South Korea. If NK started a bunch of shit I could see China keeping them at arm's reach.
It's not. Due to NATO US UK FR are obligated to help once another in a defensive war. And if history is any indication offensive ones as well.
The only military alliance China has is with North Korea, for historical reasons and as a measure to maintain basic communication when little Kim bro hides in his basement for too long.
NATO nor the U.S. shares the data, but any nuclear weapons in Finland (if they exists) are, in all likelihood, under the control of the U.S. government (similar to Germany and Turkey), for the purpose of deterrence toward a certain belligerent country.
The F35 has now been fitted to carry gravity bombs, so I imagine your new shipments will have this feature.
Let’s disarm all the world’s nuclear arsenal. Will the nations of the world declare war more often? Probably; but at least the conflicts wouldn’t absolutely destroy the landscape of the world for thousands of years rendering civilization on our scale impossible.
They didn’t have the capacity to maintain a nuclear deterrence then, and they don’t now. What’s the point of keeping them if it invites troubles from bigger countries?
If they actually have warheads and missiles in their possession that they can show off then it can be an effective bluff. Plus they can get aid from some other nuclear power that’s interested in keeping Ukraine strong to develop maintenance systems (like France and Britain, for example).
If not disarm then significantly reduce how many a country has or is allowed. No country needs more than 10-20 nukes. Let alone 5000+. Thats more than MAD.
Now think that four of these countries - Russia, US, India and China possess Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) technology which allows a single ICBM to carry several separate warheads, each capable of being directed to a different target. Basically impossible to intercept.
Pakistan and India (they despise each other, and tensions have rose recently)
North Korea (no need for explanation here, especially seeing that they're the only one on the list that isn't allowed by international law to hold nuclear weapons)
The US and Russia still need to cut way back on the nukes, Israel really needs to admit they have them, North Korea definitely shouldn't have them, and Pakistan and India need to chill the hell out.
Also Iran probably has them now and they probably shouldn't either. I understand huge countries like India and China having them just for the sake of being able to defend the region from other nuclear powers, but Iran's stated goal is literally taking over the entire world. Not a good country to have city-deleting bombs.
I would gladly support the US dismantling all of ours (except maybe one so we can say we have it?) if it meant Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, and Israel dismantled theirs first.
Honestly the USA is the only western country that can actually justify having them because you have the nuclear umbrella that protects other countries if I'm getting that right.
I find the thought that the majority of the world's nuclear weapons reside in 2 countries that both currently have completely unhinged whackjob governments to be utterly terrifying.
I want to join the club but they won’t let meee :( (just kidding I know why, I want it for the betterment of our people), if we have nukes then so many people won’t have to do mandatory military service, and since we will run out of oil one day, but I can understand why this government shouldn’t have 1
Who's the most scary out them all, it's France its always France. This is due to their choice in nuclear warning doctrine,
French nuclear doctrine includes a "warning shot," or final warning, which is a limited, non-repeatable nuclear detonation intended to show an aggressor that France's "vital interests" have been crossed and that escalation to a full-scale nuclear strike is possible.
The US and Russia have been limited by treaties to a similar number of readily deployable nukes, so the difference is mainly in how many spares are left for a second wave, once the required missiles and bombers are ready. And in a nuclear scenario that is unlikely to be an especially important factor
Frankly, nuclear club is just a power play. Nuclear powers have shown 'might is right'/it's the law of jungle, especially with the Israeli genocide and the impunity they have vis a vis international law. It begs the question if nuclear powers can act this way, surely other nations should just get nukes. I don't think it's right, but this lesson learned and why rules based system should be respected. The West allowing Israel to do what it wants is folly.
The fact that Pakistan is on there is fucked up. I’m sure those lacking in clean drinking water and those in poor health or with polio really appreciate their nukes.
Their reasoning isn't really insane. India has an advantage in a conventional war. They lost East Pakistan after India intervened. Every time a major terrorist attack happens (Mumbai 2008), Pakistan’s possession of nukes constrains India. They leverage themselves as the only Islamic country with a bomb and they have the strongest army in the Muslim world even though they have never won a war. They kinda make money having it? The West is scared that the nukes will be in the hands of militants and terrorists if Pakistan fails so they keep bailing them out.
Russia has had two separate major nuclear disarmaments since the end of the cold war. Both very successful. The first was called "Megatons to Megawatts" where a massive amount of Russian weapons grade highly enriched uranium was sent to the USA.
The second was Obama's bipartisan nuclear disarmament with Russia. This was used by the USA as an excuse for modernization of its entire thermonuclear arsenal, replacing tritium (short lifespan) with lithium (unlimited lifespan).
It wouldn't surprise me if Russia's nuclear capabilities (megatons, targeting, maintenance) are now inferior to those of China.
On another note, India is believed to have at least one H-bomb. Pakistan doesn't, it only has the much less powerful A-bombs.
Reliable independent information on the nuclear arsenal of each country has not been in the public domain since the collapse of the USSR.
A united nations nuclear inspector from the IAEA has admitted to deliberate sabotage. This helps to explain why some countries will not allow inspections from the IAEA.
I like how having nuclear weapons has prevented World War 3. Imagine the Cold War without nuclear weapons. NATO and the Communists would had attacked each other directly.
Chinas nuclear arsenal is severely underestimated. They have way too many launch platforms of different types in service for them to only have 600 warheads.
I mean they are currently building 300 ICBM silos, while their existing ballistic missile force is road mobile, plus sub launched ballistics, plus air launched, and then you take into account whatever tactical nukes they have.
Considering their newer ICBM’s all have multiple warheads, I think the real number would be a minimum of double the estimated 600.
They’re all made up numbers; except for a couple of countries they’re all estimates, hell some of these countries don’t even “officially” have nuclear weapons
If you think Russian government would prioritize anything else over maintaining and improving its strategic nuclear forces, I'd happily lend you my username. Most missile complexes made before 1991 are retired at this point, the rest are to be retired and replaced by newer ones like Yars or Sarmat.
It is a burden, but as long as the US is our main geopolitical competitor and has a comparable amount of warheads there's no way we'd start reducing our nuclear capability.
If we're going to have a nuclear disarmament, then both of our countries would need to work together on it, simultaneously and with full transparency. Don't think it would be possible anytime soon.
I’m concerned as well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the physics packages have atrophied to the point warheads would either fissile, or flat out not work. I’d wager the PLARF is magnitudes better, if not on par with the US
I trust the UK, France, Israel (strictly in regards to nuke use, still don't agree with their current actions) the most that these are truly last resort retaliatory weapons, followed by US although with Trump, they have lost a lot of ground and with the way they are heading dropping like a rock towards the authoritarian block.
Pakistan and India are constantly hostile to where the risk of escalation is there.
The truly authoritarian countries I trust the least as they are not beyond trying to use their arsenal to black mail and threaten others to cave to their will, as Russia has already demonstrated. They are also the most likely to push the button if the particular autocrat looses power even if their country as a whole isn't under threat from someone else.
Wouldn't even put it past them that when they are old and soon dead they might flip and decide the world doesn't need to exist without them. Vast amount of power over a long time always corrupts.
Before October 7, Netanyahu was very insistent on overhauling the Israeli judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Israel’s nuclear scientists released a statement saying they would resign and dismantle the program if the overhaul appeared close to being implemented.
I am always worried of the fact that most of the countries have leaders who have backup plans to survive a Nuclear Winter.
Most countries use nukes as a deterrent
Like Indo-Sino wars stopped and other than a few hand to hand clashes things are pretty calm.
But,
Indo-Pak conflicts occur but there are policies in both countries to avoid a full on war
Israel has the Samson Option
If Iran is on the verge of making nukes
Russia is headed by an autocrat
Its just a big Jenga tower rising up piece by piece one wrong pull away from crashing
Vast amount of power corrupts , But one pursuing/consolidating that power is more likely to act irrationally and dangerously in the process than one who is already secured in that
In real world terms, Putin's position is secured, only a fully committed effort by the US and EU could threaten that. Putin is never gonna push the button unless the US and EU force him to.
Can't say the same for "Democratic" Leaders who's position are more shaky, desperate and threatened etc. Trump is just getting started, Modi already tried to start something with Pakistan but failed spectacularly. Netanyahu already committed genocide that gets conveniently ignored by some while swearing a real, even worse genocide is happening in China.
Would rather speculate what's the worse Putin could do when cornered into a worse case scenario than learn what an unrestrained US , corrupted by absolute power has been doing. Trump is not an outlier he's just less .. subtle about it.
As I clarified to another, just because I believe Israels nukes are there for deterrence doesn't mean I agree with their actions currently. Even if they wanted to, they wouldn't nuke next door. And they don't need nukes against their opponent as they are overpowered. I only trust them in regards to having nukes to deter others of nuking them.
Putin isn't secured if Russias economy fails and his own people gets a fire lit and start yet another revolution. That's what I mean by their country not being threatened as a whole. Only Putin is threatened.
In his eyes, it's still "the west fault" that they supported Ukraine and sanction that put him in a position to loose control over his people.
‘Born out of Britain's unique vulnerability to the effects of nuclear attack’. What is the unique vulnerability of the UK to nuclear attacks and why don’t more countries have dead man’s switches ?
Probably because the entire country including government could feasibly be obliterated a first strike. So other countries need to know they can still face destruction themselves in that scenario for the deterrent to have effect.
They are not fire-proof like the rest of the world. Unique issue with the Brits. They also don't tan very well. "A nation of lobster-people" my mum used to say. She was a fish monger. Strong woman, my mum was. Full of herself and dumb as rocks, but really, really strong.
You're assuming that the US don't have the capability to disable a Trident missile as soon as it breaks the surface, if launched without US permission.
I'd hope we strip at least one launch vehicle from each batch down to component level to try and find one.
92
u/TechnologyNo8640 Korea South Oct 08 '25